Evolution is Not Atheistic

[bhsmte]

So, Jesus dying for our sins is allegorical? I'll go with the clear intent of the Bible as it's written as far as what is intended to be read as literal history and what is not.

How did you conclude, the bible is literal history?

 

[Butterfly99]

For the people who take the whole Bible literally, how literally do you take it? Cause that's my confusion. This fellow told me that if you believe the Bible literally you can't believe in Nasa, evolution, heliocentricism, spherical earth. I asked him if I could quote him cause I was confused & he said sure so I made a thread about that the other day if anybody's interested.

 

[Butterfly99]

Numerous studies have show, the majority of Christians accept evolution.

Cause there's not a real reason not to tbh. Not any more than not believing in flat earth.

 

[bhsmte]

Cause there's not a real reason not to tbh. Not any more than not believing in flat earth.

Well, for some there is a real reason and that is to protect a fundamentalist faith belief.

Protecting the belief, takes priority over accepting mountains of evidence.

 

[Meowzltov]

In fact evolution starts with a humongous faith in something that is totally ridiculous that supersedes any that a christian might have.

No, acceptance of evolution starts with reviewing known facts, and arriving at conclusions based upon those facts.

 

[Butterfly99]

Well, for some there is a real reason and that is to protect a fundamentalist faith belief.

Protecting the belief, takes priority over accepting mountains of evidence.

I'm still learning about what fundamentalism even is & how it differs from being an evangelical Christian. I thought we were all evangelical Christians tho. There's all these different faith groups, fundamentalism, moderate, liberal and then all the denominations & stuff. I don't know who believes what. I just have never heard of anybody not believing in evolution b4. I didn't know it was something you could believe in tbh. Cause really it's about facts not belief.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm still learning about what fundamentalism even is & how it differs from being an evangelical Christian. I thought we were all evangelical Christians tho. There's all these different faith groups, fundamentalism, moderate, liberal and then all the denominations & stuff. I don't know who believes what. I just have never heard of anybody not believing in evolution b4. I didn't know it was something you could believe in tbh. Cause really it's about facts not belief.

With some people, personal beliefs, take priority, over facts.

 

[Meowzltov]

While I agree there are many ways to believe in [a] God and believe in evolution, one cannot consistently believe in evolution and believe in the God of the Bible. That is because evolution claims life and the whole universe came about through purely natural causes, while the Bible says God specifically and intentionally created. The two claims are mutually exclusive: only one can be true.

Likewise one cannot believe in long ages (which evolution requires) and believe in the Bible. Long ages puts death before sin, and that contradicts the first part of the central message of the whole OT, that death is a result of Adam's sin. The second part of the central message of the whole OT is that man cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts; and the central message of the whole NT is an answer to the dilemma of the OT, namely that Jesus died for our sins so we can be reconciled to God. If God created some great length of time in the past, and man is only a recent addition to God's creation, then that means death was here from the beginning, not a result of man's sin. If death is not a result of sin, then death is normal, in fact, by evolution's position, required, then Jesus saving us from death is not required - it is not even welcome.

1. There always exists the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." The whole point of the beginning of Genesis is that God created. Evolution does not explain how what is came into being, nor does
science offer any falsifiable explanation. Even if you push theories back before the Big Bang into the unprovable hypothesis of multiverses, the question of "Why is there something and not nothing" still exists. It is just begging the question.

2. It sounds like you are saying the "God of the Bible" created the world in six 24 hour days approximately 6000 years ago. But this depends upon a literal reading of the beginning of Genesis. This does a disservice to Genesis. Genesis is a Creation Myth by genre. You wouldn't read any other myth literally, so why are you reading Genesis literally? Rather you read it for the eternal truths that it teaches.

3. Christ's atonement saves us from Spiritual death.

 

[Meowzltov]

It's not a matter of ignoring evidence, it's a matter of how the evidence is interpreted, and the difference in interpretation comes from different starting perspectives. YECs and others start with the same "mountains of evidence" so it's not that one side has 'mountains' and the other doesn't. As I said in my previous post, I believe Jesus died for my sins, to save me from death (the consequences of my sins). Thus I believe that Jesus saved me from the death that we see in the geologic record.

I disagree. YEC start with a conclusion and then try to force the evidence to fit (inductive reasoning). Evolutionists didn't start with a conclusion, but followed the evidence to its conclusion (deductive reasoning).

 

[jj3pa]

Narrow is the Way. No I think it breaks the logical rules of interpretation found in Scripture. We cannot just allegorize something like this because today it doesn't fit with our understanding of reality.
I highly doubt when this was written that anyone would have read it like that. A simplistic summarized evolution account could easily have been given by God that would have satisfied the "simple minds" of primitive man. Much like how the pagans had their primitive views of evolution. I take an allegorical approach as misleading unrighteous deception on God's part. There is nothing obvious about an allegory in the text. It is only inferred by modern scientific views that conflict with the literal reading and necessitate it to reconcile faith with supposed reality.

A couple points

1. No pagans had version of evolution. None of them that I know of had anything like it. The version of creation in the Bible is borrowed from Mesopotamian myths.
2. There is no such thing as "The Bible" there are at least three different collections that I know of that are considered the Bible - I assume more. You made a reference to works not in the Cannon - the Epistle of Barnabas. There are hundreds others (They're just what we know of through references or copies). Who made the decision of which to include ? People that agreed on a certain theology.
3. How can you take something literal that you don't know the original language that it was written in, that no one has ever seen the original copies of, and that translators translate according to their own preconception. For instance a word may be translated into English as congregation or church depending on if your intent was to support the idea of a structured church or not. This happened during translation of the King James Bible
4. There are too many versions of Biblical sources to be able to say you can take it literally. Some versions of the Bible don't have 1 Corinthians 14:34- in them . The part that admonishes women not to speak. Some scholars say it was a later addition.

So I would go with the idea to learn from the Bible and not take it literally. Realize that it was written by people but was inspired. Otherwise how do you explain things like slavery in the Bible or cooking your children ?

 

[Meowzltov]

I also want to comment on the title of this thread. I agree evolution is not atheistic, but I believe that evolution in some form is an inevitable conclusion of atheistic beliefs. If one does not believe a creator God exists then one cannot logically believe that such a being created anything. Thus one must conclude life and the whole universe came about through natural causes. Notice this conclusion is based in logic, not evidence, and begins with a belief (or in this case, lack of belief) contrary to the claim in the OP.

True, but one could be an atheist and simply believe that life always existed in its present state, for example. Atheists accept evolution not because it's the only atheist position, but because it's the only position supported by the facts.

 

[lasthero]

My point was that supposedly all the dinosaurs died as a result of the Chixculub impact. If it killed the largest animals it seems odd the smaller ones survived.

Why? Smaller animals need less food, are able to burrow, and would do better in such an environment. Bigger animals need more resources. In an environment with less resources, smaller animals are favored.

It isn't mentioned in the Bible what Noah had for breakfast either, so by that argument we must conclude Noah never had breakfast or he didn't exist or something.

A meteor impact is somewhat more of an important detail than what Noah had for breakfast. Such an impact would've sent debris flying across the globe and altered the atmosphere for quite some time. And there were MANY such impacts in the past.

That's a lovely graphic. Do you have a larger version I can actually study, or perhaps a link to details on all those impacts, and what layers they are in?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Let's not idolize pagans. The Greek philosophers had all sorts of bizarre notions of how life began, none of which were based on scientific thinking.

Dear Open Heart,

Here is a book review by a Catholic reviewer of a Catholic author regarding the evolution/creation debate. If you have not already seen it, it may be of interest to you.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=657

The Pontifical Biblical Commission

Take for example what would seem to be one of Chaberek’s strongest anti-evolution sources: a series of responsa, or replies, made regarding questions of scriptural interpretation by the Pontifical Biblical Commission between 1905 and 1909. Some of the responsa dealt with issues of historical and textual criticism more generally, and one dealt specifically with the first three chapters of Genesis.

The responsum on Genesis stated that it was not admissible to claim that these chapters are not historical narratives, but less literal forms such as:

allegories and symbols, lacking a foundation in objective reality, given under the appearance of history in order to inculcate proposed religious and philosophical truths; or…legends, partly historical and partly fictitious, freely composed for the instruction and edification of souls.

It further listed specific things the “literal, historical sense” of which cannot be called into question. These included “the special creation of man” (meaning man was created by God directly and not by secondary causes) and “the formation of the first woman out of the first man.”

…

At any rate, the question is not whether the responsa can be interpreted to admit of theistic evolution—I believe Chaberek is right that they cannot—but what sort of authority the PBC’s decrees carry.

While some in the church believe Genesis 1-3 to be of a historical nature, others regard these chapters as allegorical.
THE QUESTION IS: Who in the church has the authority to decide.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, the "pagans" have an idea of evolution. Try the pre-Socratics, try Anaximander. As I recall, he argued we all evolved from fish.

 

[Meowzltov]

While some in the church believe Genesis 1-3 to be of a historical nature, others regard these chapters as allegorical.
THE QUESTION IS: Who in the church has the authority to decide.

It would really take an ecumenical council. Even an infallible statement by the Pope has to be based upon current teaching by the Church, of which there is no absolute teaching as of right now.

 

[SteveB28]

So, Jesus dying for our sins is allegorical? I'll go with the clear intent of the Bible as it's written as far as what is intended to be read as literal history and what is not.

It's quite possible that the Jesus story is allegorical. However, that wasn't my point. The story about a literal 6 day creation is obviously allegorical, imaginative, fictional, illusory - choice your preferred adjective.

 

[As I was saying]

No, acceptance of evolution starts with reviewing known facts, and arriving at conclusions based upon those facts.

Known facts? Don't make me laugh. Our own solar system which includes nine planets, fifty four natural satellites, 1,000 comets, and thousands of asteroids and meteoroids in precisely balanced orbit around the sun sits near the edge of the milky way galaxy. This galaxy is approx 100,000 light years in diameter and is estimated to contain up to 400 billion stars.

The faith of evolutionists require that they believe all of this is an accident of time and chance, plus they believe in the random, unplanned emergence of life on earth.

Reviewing known facts?? Reviewing known fallacies more like it.

 

[Hoghead1]

When it comes to deciding who's right on Genesis, I think you have to decide for yourself, make up your own mind. I have given the matter much study, especially the textual evidence, and have concluded it is two contradictory accounts of creation, written a different times. So, lean as much as you can an then decide. I'm Unitarian and we are open-ended on doctrines, encouraging you to choose for yourself.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

It would really take an ecumenical council. Even an infallible statement by the Pope has to be based upon current teaching by the Church, of which there is no absolute teaching as of right now.

I'm surprised by your answer. For me to fully understand it, does that mean that the church does not read Genesis 1-3 as historical narrative, neither does it read these same chapters allegorical or whatever?
The article seems to imply that a historical reading would support Special Creation, while an an allegorical reading may allow an evolutionary interpretation.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

I have given the matter much study, especially the textual evidence, and have concluded it is two contradictory accounts of creation, written a different times.

Many other Christians, like you do, conclude that Genesis has two contradictory accounts of creation.
.
But some excellent articles have been written showing a non-contradictory relationship between Genesis 1, and Genesis 2, 3. (I have such an article in book form, but I don't know of any online reference which I can give you.)
.
The second account commences at Genesis 2:4.
I cannot reduce an entire thesis to three sentences, but here is the basic thrust.
This account records the transition from a perfect creation to a sinful and imperfect 'cursed' world.
The 'thorns and thistles' described in 3:18 refer back to the 'no shrub' and 'no plant' mentioned in 2:5. (The Hebrew text shows the connection.)

It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. Genesis 3:18

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, and there was no one to work the ground. Genesis 2:5

'No one to work the ground' 2:5 is parallel to 3:19 'By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.'
When such literary connections are understood, it reveals the true thrust of what Genesis 2 and 3 is saying. It is not rewriting Genesis 1, it is showing how the perfect creation went horribly wrong.
I cannot refer you to any online source, but if anyone requests it, I will give details of an excellent book covering this and other topics related to creation, Genesis, etc.
.
NOTE
I've just found the book on Amazon