-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evolution and Christianity?
- Thread starter pastorkevin73
- Start date
- Status
FreezBee said:
It is very revealing that you consider the opinions of Darwin to be at least on a par with what the Word of God declares, just because of Darwin's mention of "Creator"?!
It is a logical fallacy to declare that because God the Father is outside of time and nature as we know it, that His "...actions... are not objective actions-"
You say... "So apparently you can both accept a creator and evolution." If one accepts God as the Creator, then what did He create? Nothing but myths? Nothing that one may observe from an objective perspective?
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
WAB said:
He created the universe... perhaps you've noticed that you're standing in the middle of it.
Now, how He created it, that's the area we're studying here.
Upvote
0
Metaphor
Active Member
- Dec 19, 2005
- 50
- 3
- 35
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
If God gave us a logical explanation for everything, then he would not tell us over and over again the "The righteous man shall live by his faith".WAB said:
You need faith to believe in the Bible, because what it SAYS is true, not what you IMPLEY.
-John
Upvote
0
Personally I'm not a big fan of evolution. As I see it, the only way evolution could ever work would be if God guided the process every step of the way in a way the would be contrary to everything we know about science. God could disprove evolution, not vice versa. I would say it's definately possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution as long as you believe God created the world. The Bible never said anything about all of the detailed mechanics involved in the creation process other than that God spoke and it was so. It is just a matter of opinion as to what happened physically. As I said before, I don't think evolution is scientifically possible, but then again, I'm not God. Only he would know.
Upvote
0
Extirpated Wildlife
Wanted: Room to Roam
edjsage said:
I'm not actually trying to respond to you, but maybe to get a response to the different versions of TE.
Is there a segment of TE that holds to that?
Upvote
0
chaoschristian
Well-Known Member
Extirpated Wildlife said:
Well, logically you could assert that God has an active, guiding hand in the process, and that radomness (at the quantum level I suppose) isn't really random. While there is nothing in evidence to disprove this, there is also nothing in evidence to substantiate it either. It is basically un-disprovable. However, logically, it also violates Occum's Razor, but as much if not all of TE violates Occum's Razor, that particular point is probably not a concern to whomever holds this view.
This assertion is interesting, because it would seem to blur the line between TE and ID. If the Creator is so active in purposely driving the selection process (possibly even guiding which allelles get moved around?) then how is that significantly different from the concept of a 'designer'?
I don't know.
Or is special creation a necessary cornerstone of ID?
Upvote
0
Extirpated Wildlife
Wanted: Room to Roam
chaoschristian said:
What is wrong with a 'designer'?
I would gather that Occam's razor is out of the scope of God and only in a realm of scientific discussions between humans.
Upvote
0
chaoschristian
Well-Known Member
Extirpated Wildlife said:
Creator, designer. Tomato, Tomahto. It's not the label, but the intent or meaning behind the label. If I have my ID correct, the Designer is called such because of the irreducibly complex nature of certain aspects of organic life. Since TEs, such as I know, don't accept irreducible complexity, then that is at least one difference between TE and ID. However, if you have a TE Creator who is 'chosing' the random selections driving the evolutionary process (as cited in the example above) then my question is, how is that different from ID?
Occam's Razor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.
In other words, the theory of evolution can exist quite nicely without the added concept of a Creator. I 'add' the concept of the Creator to the theory of evolution (I believe God uses the evolutionary process as part of His Creation) and willingly violate the Law of Parsimony. But I can do that easily since I am not absolute materialist.
As I've said before, this makes the TE position a difficult one to hold, because those who don't understand my reliance on reasoning and science think I'm being to materialistic, and those who don't understand my dependence on and faith in God think I'm being too irrational.
Upvote
0
WAB said:
This comment seems to be non-sequitur. Would you like to explain your conclusion or is it just a way for you to avoid addressing the original post.
I'll ask the question again.
You don't think that all of the scientists, professors, researchers, authors, and biologists who accept evolution and base their work on it everyday are non-Christian do you?
Upvote
0
edjsage said:
It is not at all contrary to science. But many TEs also hold that God guides evolution, just as God ensures that all natural processes work. One does not see God's guidance primarily in what goes against nature, but in the ordinary processes of nature like magnetism, gravity, growth and development.
Essentially, that is a definition of theistic evolution. TEs believe in creation and accept that evolution is valid science. In regard to the diversity of species, evolution is the process God created to make sure species diversified and adapted.
Well, that opinion can be easily changed by learning more about evolution and the supporting evidence for evolution.
Upvote
0
chaoschristian said:
In a general sense it is not different. Natural selection is a design tool. But in the sense in which ID approaches design, there is a difference. ID not only asserts the existence of a designer, but also asserts that some biological designs could not have emerged through mutation and natural selection.
TEs agree there is a designer, but do not put that limitation on the mechanism of creating the design. If God wants to design a complex organ like the eye using the mechanisms of evolution, why not?
ID basically says God cannot use evolution to design a complex organ (or biochemical process like blood clotting). So IMO ID attacks God's omnipotence. ID basically says there are some things God cannot do.
Upvote
0
Extirpated Wildlife said:
Agreed. And in any case, Occam's razor is only a guideline, not a scientific law. It's a very good guideline, but there is nothing to say it is always right.
Upvote
0
chaoschristian said:
Picky correction. Irreducible complexity does exist in nature, and TE does not deny that. But TE rejects the ID position that irreducible complexity cannot originate through evolution. As does mainstream science. There are a number of ways in which something that is irreducibly complex today could have evolved from precursors which either were not irreducibly complex, or which were originally used for different functions.
Upvote
0
NarrowPathPilgrim
If God be for us, who can be against us
- Jan 6, 2006
- 344
- 10
- 36
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
NOpastorkevin73 said:
If you believe in evolution you are calling Jesus a liar. And you are without excuse
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20
Upvote
0
NarrowPathPilgrim
If God be for us, who can be against us
- Jan 6, 2006
- 344
- 10
- 36
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.Dannager said:
Evolution places death before sin.
Evolution removes the fall and in doing so removes the reason for Christ's death.
Evolution contradicts the genealogy of Christ
Luke 3:23-38
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Evolution contradicts the words of Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 19:4, it calls him a liar.And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Evolution depicts God as a powerless and helpless something on the sidelines at best. It usually denies him altogether.
Evolution contradicts hundreds if not thousands of scripture passages.
And evolution is stupid!
Sincerely, Zach Doty
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
