Evolution

[alien444]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

Early hominids were created by God. Divine creation and evolution don't stand mutually exclusive; the natural processes and mechanisms of the universe are there by God's creative power, and He works through them to accomplish His ends. That includes evolution, and it would also include the big bang and abiogenesis.

Christian theism doesn't traditionally understand God as an aloof clockmaker, but as actively participant in the goings-on of creation. His Divine transcendence is held as mutually true with His Divine eminence. He is both wholly other and utterly near; both radically beyond and outside all creation and filling all things. That means it's not simply a matter of an "outside" God occasionally sticking His finger in to do something "supernatural", but that God is actively at work within the natural. I can speak of being created by God in my mother's womb while understanding the naturalistic processes by which sexual procreation works. Thus to say God created me does not mean I believe God circumvented nature to produce me, but that through the entirely natural and explainable processes of procreation I came to exist, and this is no less the work of God than God creating the cosmos ex nihilo. God isn't the unexplained mystery of nature, but the Creator, Sustainer, and Mover of all things.

I am a human being created in the image of God. I am a hominid ape descended through a lineage of hominid apes, sharing a common ancestor with the rest of the great apes; and together we share a common primate ancestor, a common mammalian ancestor, a common tetrapod ancestor, and so on and so forth down through the eons until we get tot he primordial soup of organic compounds on a planet that was formed through millions of years of accretion from the solar disk--remnants of the formation of our sun--which is all matter which exploded and rapidly expanded out from a 14 billion year old singularity that gave birth to this universe of ours. And all of that is authored by the Good Creator God, who has made all these things, designed them, and which show forth His glory and greatness; this same God who, being the Logos, condescended and became incarnate, man, in the womb of Mary--that is, Jesus.

Jesus, Eternal Son and Word of the Father, being one in nature with the Father, God of God, became man. He who laid forth the stars hung on a cross. He who saw over the evolution of a lineage of primates became one of those primates.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[alien444]

Early hominids were created by God. Divine creation and evolution don't stand mutually exclusive; the natural processes and mechanisms of the universe are there by God's creative power, and He works through them to accomplish His ends. That includes evolution, and it would also include the big bang and abiogenesis.

Christian theism doesn't traditionally understand God as an aloof clockmaker, but as actively participant in the goings-on of creation. His Divine transcendence is held as mutually true with His Divine eminence. He is both wholly other and utterly near; both radically beyond and outside all creation and filling all things. That means it's not simply a matter of an "outside" God occasionally sticking His finger in to do something "supernatural", but that God is actively at work within the natural. I can speak of being created by God in my mother's womb while understanding the naturalistic processes by which sexual procreation works. Thus to say God created me does not mean I believe God circumvented nature to produce me, but that through the entirely natural and explainable processes of procreation I came to exist, and this is no less the work of God than God creating the cosmos ex nihilo. God isn't the unexplained mystery of nature, but the Creator, Sustainer, and Mover of all things.

I am a human being created in the image of God. I am a hominid ape descended through a lineage of hominid apes, sharing a common ancestor with the rest of the great apes; and together we share a common primate ancestor, a common mammalian ancestor, a common tetrapod ancestor, and so on and so forth down through the eons until we get tot he primordial soup of organic compounds on a planet that was formed through millions of years of accretion from the solar disk--remnants of the formation of our sun--which is all matter which exploded and rapidly expanded out from a 14 billion year old singularity that gave birth to this universe of ours. And all of that is authored by the Good Creator God, who has made all these things, designed them, and which show forth His glory and greatness; this same God who, being the Logos, condescended and became incarnate, man, in the womb of Mary--that is, Jesus.

Jesus, Eternal Son and Word of the Father, being one in nature with the Father, God of God, became man. He who laid forth the stars hung on a cross. He who saw over the evolution of a lineage of primates became one of those primates.

-CryptoLutheran

Wow. If all Christians believed as yourself then the growing divide between science and religion in America would practically not exist. Unfortunately, as I am sure you know very well, the vast majority of Christians would adamantly disagree with you on several points. Personally, it is impossible for me to resolve evolution with the Christian idea of a Creator God, and I believe that young earth creationists have the most consistent and intellectually honest interpretation of the bible.

 

[dhh712]

Wow. If all Christians believed as yourself then the growing divide between science and religion in America would practically not exist. Unfortunately, as I am sure you know very well, the vast majority of Christians would adamantly disagree with you on several points. Personally, it is impossible for me to resolve evolution with the Christian idea of a Creator God, and I believe that young earth creationists have the most consistent and intellectually honest interpretation of the bible.

I agree that if the post you referenced were every Christian's belief there would hardly be any divide between science and religion. I mean no disrespect to the poster and do not wish to embark on a debate, rather just to state my own views on the topic. Personally I believe what God has to say about the world rather than what the world has to say about the world. I do not deny that there probably are (though I have not personally investigated such things myself) good evidences of such things that you spoke of found by scientists and evaluated to be facts of the world.

Yet, that matters not to me. God even promised that He would send delusions because the worldly loved not the truth. My personal belief is that the so-called facts found supporting evolution and all things contrary to what the word of God tells us is God's gift to us for wanting science to prevail over Him and give us autonomy instead of submitting to His authority. Of course, this is mere idle speculation.

The post you referenced seems to attempt to conform the Bible to the world. In my view, the world should conform to the Bible and if it does not it is not true. For me, I take authority from what God has to say and not what the world has to say. I do not believe the Bible should be utilized in any great way as a science book for I believe it focuses very little on the world except for as a guide to how those who love God should live while they are in it; it is mainly a story of redemption.

In spite of all this, I think what God has allowed us through science can provide us with many benefits--and has done so from the many things which it has already contributed to the betterment of society. Yet I feel it is being utilized in the wrong manner, with a seeming underlying attempt (definitely not the main focus of) to disprove the existence of a supreme being; it rather should be utilized to the ultimate glorification of God, to exemplify His awesome power, incomprehensible wisdom and profound intricacy in His design and governance of the world.

And let me not to forget to add that it ultimately matters not if one believes the earth is six thousand years or six trillion or whatever--what ultimately matters is that one believes upon Christ as their Lord and Saviour; let us thank the Lord God that He has offered His Son as a sacrifice to all us sinners--and not have our salvation depend upon us receiving a passing grade on a doctrinal examination!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wow. If all Christians believed as yourself then the growing divide between science and religion in America would practically not exist. Unfortunately, as I am sure you know very well, the vast majority of Christians would adamantly disagree with you on several points. Personally, it is impossible for me to resolve evolution with the Christian idea of a Creator God, and I believe that young earth creationists have the most consistent and intellectually honest interpretation of the bible.

I think it's really just that many have culturally adapted to thinking that young earth creationism is Christianity by default. When it's really not. Non-literal understandings of Genesis have been around since at least the early Patristic era, and includes some of the foremost thinkers and theologians of the Christian Church: for example Origen of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas.

Even in the early 20th century the vast majority of America's Fundamentalists (including William Jennings Bryan of Scopes' Monkey Trial Fame) were actually old earth creationists. Because an old earth had been well recognized for centuries, by scientists and churchmen alike (and many churchmen were those scientists). It really isn't until we get to the 1960's and the publication of the Genesis Flood that YEC really took off in America, and grew in popularity no doubt due to the popular "scandal" of "taking God out of school". A reactionary public clinging to reactionary figures and groups such as Francis Schaeffer and Jerry Falwell built it up and it fomented and created what has become the modern Religious Right which gained an incredible amount of steam in the 1980s.

But if one were to think that modernistic Fundamentalist/American-style conservative Evangelicalism was "Christianity default", then sure things like young earth creationism and neo-conservative tea party republican politics would seem to be "basic" Christianity--but they aren't. But that is the cultural narrative we keep telling ourselves in our society.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

as I am sure you know very well, the vast majority of Christians would adamantly disagree with you on several points.

In the USA, theistic evolutionists actually outnumber 144-hour Creationists -- roughly five to four, according to one survey.

I believe that young earth creationists have the most consistent and intellectually honest interpretation of the bible.

You have some special expertise in interpreting the Bible? You've studied theology? You read Hebrew and Greek perhaps?

I'm starting to become sceptical about the genuineness of your questions.

 

[alien444]

In the USA, theistic evolutionists actually outnumber 144-hour Creationists -- roughly five to four, according to one survey.



You have some special expertise in interpreting the Bible? You've studied theology? You read Hebrew and Greek perhaps?

I'm starting to become sceptical about the genuineness of your questions.

I state on my only other post on this forum that I am a PROUD non-believer in God and the supernatural-I am not hiding my beliefs. I understand that makes you suspicious of my motives, but if I wanted to start an argument or simply attempt to offend someone there are better places on the web to do so. I am more interested in having a conversation. I dont expect (or try) to change anyones mind and I dont expect anyone to change my mind. I am not a theologian (if I was I would not be asking such questions), I am a history teacher. Just chill out---If I offend you dont read my posts.

 

[lesliedellow]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

I do not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-2 was trying to write history or science. I think he was trying to say:

a.) That God is the creator of all things

b.) He is unique.

c.) He places his human creatures under an obligation to himself

Since he is creator of all things, he is necessarily the creator of Neanderthals and also of all our ancestors, all the way back to the first single cell organism.

He is also individually created every single person alive today, even though it is clearly also possible to describe their creation in terms of a biological process. Similarly his creation of the species can also be described in terms of a parallel physical process such as Evolution.

 

[Joshua260]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

I believe in micro-evolution, but not in macro-evolution. I also believe that I'm probably in the minority on this issue, but I don't reject macro-evolution solely on the basis of the bible itself, I've considered both sides of the issue and I sincerely believe that macro-evolution has some serious problems with it. It seems to me that when presented with these problems, macro-evolutionists usually respond with an answer similar to "well, one day we'll figure it out". But why do they never seem to ask "is it possible that we're mistaken"? Some of the problems with macro-evolution are that Darwin himself stated that the fact that species were so well defined was a concern of his, and also that no one has ever been able to create life from non-life solely through natural processes. Also, the fact that macro-evolution requires information to be added to the DNA structure in order for macro-evolution to work. I'm no specialist in this area for sure, although I know others on this site are and am looking forward to their chiming in if they could. There seems to exists within academia a stigma associated with believing in creation and people are "penalized" for publicly proclaiming their belief in it. A good movie to watch concerning this issue is Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" which can be found on youtube at the following: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) - YouTube.

 

[KWCrazy]

I state on my only other post on this forum that I am a PROUD non-believer in God and the supernatural-I am not hiding my beliefs.

Exploring Christianity A Forum for Non Christians to explore Christianity with Christians. Is this post an exploration of Christianity, or simply a challenge toward Christians? I think it's in entirely the wrong place since you have no interest in exploring Christianity. Maybe the mods will move it for you to the appropriate forum.

That said:

Do you know what the Nephilim were? Do you know what they looked like? There are a number of questions about who exactly the "sons of God" were who bore them, but the fact is they were only partially human and were known for their strength and ferocity. If I showed you a picture of Andre the Giant's skull and told you that it was the skull of a neanderthal, I'm sure I could make the argument.

This website is racist in nature, but if you look at the pictures and ignore the anti-semitism in the copy you'll see modern human skulls that could easily be passed off as neanderthal. Why? Evolutionists would say it's caused by ancestral DNA. I disagree. One the famous shelf of skulls showing the "evolutionary history of man," only three are human. The rest are apes. They don't show evolution at all. They are merely arranged to make it look that way.

As for evolution itself, that all animal species descended from a smaller group of animals is not disputed. We disagree with universal common descent; since there is far greater evidence of a universal common Creator. That you refuse to acknowledge His existence has no bearing on His existence. God is eternal. Your body will be dust in 100 years, and your soul will be in the place of your choosing; with God or in the absence of God.

Frankly, I'd be more interested in discussing history. At least that way I'd be learning from your knowledge and not your rejection of certain knowledge that find disagreeable.

 

[All Souls]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

For a start I am a Tillichian, so I would understand the statement 'God as creator' symbolically. Thus I see no conflict between God as the source of life and the evolution of humanity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow. If all Christians believed as yourself then the growing divide between science and religion in America would practically not exist. Unfortunately, as I am sure you know very well, the vast majority of Christians would adamantly disagree with you on several points. Personally, it is impossible for me to resolve evolution with the Christian idea of a Creator God, and I believe that young earth creationists have the most consistent and intellectually honest interpretation of the bible.

...I believe that young earth creationists have the most consistent and intellectually honest interpretation of the bible.

Of course! That would be convenient for arguments sake; just paint all Christians into a conceptual corner, and then 'presto,' you can just dispense with all of it in an 'intellectual' jiffy.

Actually, I don't see how it is more 'intellectually honest' to be a young earth creationist. By what standard are you applying this claim?

 

[alien444]

I think it's really just that many have culturally adapted to thinking that young earth creationism is Christianity by default. When it's really not. Non-literal understandings of Genesis have been around since at least the early Patristic era, and includes some of the foremost thinkers and theologians of the Christian Church: for example Origen of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas.

Even in the early 20th century the vast majority of America's Fundamentalists (including William Jennings Bryan of Scopes' Monkey Trial Fame) were actually old earth creationists. Because an old earth had been well recognized for centuries, by scientists and churchmen alike (and many churchmen were those scientists). It really isn't until we get to the 1960's and the publication of the Genesis Flood that YEC really took off in America, and grew in popularity no doubt due to the popular "scandal" of "taking God out of school". A reactionary public clinging to reactionary figures and groups such as Francis Schaeffer and Jerry Falwell built it up and it fomented and created what has become the modern Religious Right which gained an incredible amount of steam in the 1980s.

But if one were to think that modernistic Fundamentalist/American-style conservative Evangelicalism was "Christianity default", then sure things like young earth creationism and neo-conservative tea party republican politics would seem to be "basic" Christianity--but they aren't. But that is the cultural narrative we keep telling ourselves in our society.

-CryptoLutheran

I am not a theologian, but I have read Karen Armstrong's The Case for God in which she discusses the Mythos and the Logos. To me, it has always seemed like an argument suggesting that by not interpreting the bible literally, the past church theologians were more rational than modern YEC. These theologians were closer and more familiar with the mythical traditions of Christianity. Ironically, as science has replaced many superstitions, myth has become a less important source of knowledge. YEC are the result of a more rational worldview, absent from myth. Therefore, while it may not be the default position, I still believe it to be more consistent, rational, and intellectually honest (if you are a Christian).

 

[alien444]

Exploring Christianity A Forum for Non Christians to explore Christianity with Christians. Is this post an exploration of Christianity, or simply a challenge toward Christians? I think it's in entirely the wrong place since you have no interest in exploring Christianity. Maybe the mods will move it for you to the appropriate forum.

I understand that you are suspicious of trolls or baiters, but I dont know how many more times I can state that this is not my goal. I was redirected from the Apologetics Forum, I'm not sure if there is anywhere else for me to go on this site. If I didn't have an interest in exploring christian beliefs I would not be on this forum. Geez!


That said:

Do you know what the Nephilim were? Do you know what they looked like? There are a number of questions about who exactly the "sons of God" were who bore them, but the fact is they were only partially human and were known for their strength and ferocity. If I showed you a picture of Andre the Giant's skull and told you that it was the skull of a neanderthal, I'm sure I could make the argument.

The evidence of early homonids (many more than just Neanderthals) goes far beyond just the appearance of their skulls. You know, DNA and stuff.

This website is racist in nature, but if you look at the pictures and ignore the anti-semitism in the copy you'll see modern human skulls that could easily be passed off as neanderthal. Why? Evolutionists would say it's caused by ancestral DNA. I disagree. One the famous shelf of skulls showing the "evolutionary history of man," only three are human. The rest are apes. They don't show evolution at all. They are merely arranged to make it look that way.

You had me at "racist". I dont tend to trust sources that also promote racism.

As for evolution itself, that all animal species descended from a smaller group of animals is not disputed. We disagree with universal common descent; since there is far greater evidence of a universal common Creator. That you refuse to acknowledge His existence has no bearing on His existence. God is eternal. Your body will be dust in 100 years, and your soul will be in the place of your choosing; with God or in the absence of God.

Frankly, I'd be more interested in discussing history. At least that way I'd be learning from your knowledge and not your rejection of certain knowledge that find disagreeable.

I teach World History, which I find to be almost completely entangled with the history of religion and religious thought. (At least that is the paradigm that most interests me)

 

[ghag17]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

there is actually evidence that neanderthals are regular humans who simply had a far longer lifespan than we do today. some researchers compared skeletons of humans of different ages, and found that the differences in the skeleton as people get older are the same differences found in neanderthals, just less prominent. it's well known that the skeleton never really stops growing, it just slows down, so the researchers used information gathered from observing skeletons of different ages, and estimated what a person's skeleton would looks like if they were to live for several centuries. their results were almost an exact match for for what we call neanderthals, so really what we think are a different species, are just extremely old human beings. this even goes to prove the accuracy of the Bible, as it lists people in chronologies who lived to be hundreds of years old.

i am curious as to what others you are referring to, aside from neanderthals. i would like to discuss those too, if you like.

 

[KWCrazy]

I teach World History, which I find to be almost completely entangled with the history of religion and religious thought. (At least that is the paradigm that most interests me)

Sad but true that history's worst monsters often cloaked their evil in religion.

 

[aiki]

I am with Joshua260 on the issue of evolution. Natural selection, mutation, adaptation, speciation - all these occur in nature but none of them have actually been proven to serve as mechanisms for molecules-to-man evolution.

Selah.

 

[Ellwood3]

Here's a good resource for anyone interested in evolution, faith, and early humans. The Biologos web site is a great place for those exploring Evolutionary Christianity.

BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony



Under "Common Questions" on the Home page, go to the one about early humans. There are some answers there:

The First Humans | BioLogos


Here's my Blog post about evolution. It isn't justifiable to impose a young-earth material creation on the text.

http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u341229/


But besides that, I don't think I need to have answers to everything about how God created. The more important issue is my relationship to Him.





Genesis, Volume 1 of the What's in the Bible DVD series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4RowvUFziM&list=PLE7F89345A64B4B76

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't see the problem.

 

[dcalling]

I know some Christians don't believe in evolution, which frankly is a deal breaker for me when it comes to debate, but those of you who do---How do you reconcile early homonids (such as Neanderthals and many others) with your belief in God as creator?

Once again--I am not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know.

I was atheist for a long time, and through my argument and research with Christians realized that from the current evidences, humans are most likely created. The evidences are pretty strong.

And before someone can prove we can make real AI, the limitions of computers is another prof that something spiritual must exists to use the physical world to express themselves.