Evolution

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It’s a complex issue, because it’s not a simple case of looking at nature and seeing the hard evidence directly. It is the interpretation of data through a very distinct philosophical worldview, which is competing with the Bible.

It's not "science vs the Bible", but "science and philosophy vs the Bible". The Bible is compatible with the actual science (though it also allows for miracles), but not with the philosophy. And the philosophy distorts the science.



Very simply, LCMS believes in hard facts and God's Word, and these things do not disagree. They reject theoretical science that (A) cannot be proven and (B) compromise God's Word.

Whenever we talk about different worldviews, it's more useful to talk about them in terms of entire systems, rather than comparing individual ideas within each system.

can you talk some more about those two above paragraphs?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟394,138.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
can you talk some more about those two above paragraphs?

Sure! Much of what passes as science in our day is not pure factual science, like math, where there is no room for interpretation. Wherever there is interpretation involved, there you'll have competing ideas and no objective realities.

No one who studies anything is entirely objective in his research. I understand things through a theological lens, and an atheist understands things through a materialistic lens. I assume there is a God, for many reasons - but specifically, because God literally walked on earth in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, who claimed and demonstrated that He is God in flesh; and that He has come to save us. An atheist assumes there is no God. He rejects Christ, and the historical record. So how we operate, how we study and teach, and view life, nature, and history is wildly different from the outset. And this is why we have many different worldviews and systems of thought, which may make sense on their own, if you look at them in complete isolation. However, they all make exclusive claims that are incompatible with other systems. It's impossible to have many different truths, for there is only one truth, and I contend that is Christ.

Though many people do, it's a great error to view theoretical science as a kind of infallible and indisputable truth. A big problem with theoretical science is that it's built on many theses, like how there are building blocks in the game Jenga. This means that a person operating in this system of thought wouldn't normally be critical of what he's building upon, but assume his foundation as true. However, if a foundational building block is proven to be untrue, this would collapse the entire system of belief.

God's Word is different. It is firm and eternal, and though people will attack it from different angles, in new and old ways, what God has declared and His promise of salvation is forever true.
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To this very day there is no mechanism in any cell that could increase/add information. There is not a single mutation known that is not a loss of information.
To this very day there is also no single case known of a species developing into a different species. Dogs stay dogs, bacteria stay bacteria. No matter how much you breed them, no matter how much you change their DNA on purpose.

Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is easily observable, but there is no observable evidence that would hint to a evolution from amoeba to man.
Then why does science continue to teach otherwise?
And why is Catholicism (my background) open to macroevolution?
 
Upvote 0

Friedrich Rubinstein

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2020
1,243
1,303
Europe
Visit site
✟171,138.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then why does science continue to teach otherwise?
And why is Catholicism (my background) open to macroevolution?

Science cannot offer a logical reasoning for why we and the universe exist. Without God, without a Creator, nothing would exist and there is no way to explain the world from a materialistic point of view (materialistic means nothing transcendental exists).
But humans want answers, they want to know where we come from and why we exist. Science is in a way "forced" to offer answers, and because God is not a "scientific answer" they resort to some just-so stories which are absurd and illogical but make people feel good about not having to deal with God. The devil is a real power, and he achieved a lot by spreading the theory of "evolution" and making people believe it.

Let me quote Professor Richard Lewontin again whose words explain quite well why scientists proclaim the Big-Bang theory and Evolution although they know exactly that it's not the truth.
Lewinton is a leading evolutionary geneticist and claimed to speak for many when he confessed: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Dr Colin Patterson, the British Museum’s senior palaeontologist, said: „Nine-tenth of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum there is not a partical of evidence for the transmutation of species." Speaking in New York City, at the American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, Patterson said:

„Last year I had a sudden realization that for over 20 years I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long… so for the last few weeks I’ve been putting a simple question to various people… Can you tell me anything you know about evolution… any one thing that is true? I tried the question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said: „I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.""

Whole groups of evolutionists could not tell a single thing about evolution that is true. Scientists know that their theory is utter nonsense, but they don't have a better answer for people asking about the world's origin that doesn't include God. So they keep telling the fairy tale of evolution.

Steven J. Gould, late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology at Harvard University, and President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record „persists as the trade secret of palaeontology“. Niles Eldredge agrees, claiming a deception has been taking place: „We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change]… all the while knowing that it does not".

Do Gould and Eldredge believe in a Creator because of it though? No! They don't want a God. So instead their response to the problem was to suggest that evolution developed by sudden and massive jumps from one species to the other, rather than by gradual change. Which is even absurder than the original theory.

Is it silly to believe in a God as a scientist? Absolutely not. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and many many other famous scientists knew exactly that the universe had been created by God, simply based on their scientific observations.

Heisenberg wrote: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you".

And Max Planck wrote: "Not the visible, short-lived matter is the real, actual, true - because matter wouldn't exist without the mind - but the invisible, eternal spirit is the real! Therefore I do not hesitate to call this mysterious creator the same as all cultures of the world called him for millenniums: God."

Today even so-called Christians don't trust God anymore and refuse to believe His word. As a result these "Christians" value the ignorance of scientists higher than the Bible. If Catholics teach macroevolution then they'll have a rude awakening when Jesus returns. Because Jesus will return as the Creator of the universe (Revelation 14:7).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daniel9v9
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Science cannot offer a logical reasoning for why we and the universe exist. Without God, without a Creator, nothing would exist and there is no way to explain the world from a materialistic point of view (materialistic means nothing transcendental exists).
But humans want answers, they want to know where we come from and why we exist. Science is in a way "forced" to offer answers, and because God is not a "scientific answer" they resort to some just-so stories which are absurd and illogical but make people feel good about not having to deal with God. The devil is a real power, and he achieved a lot by spreading the theory of "evolution" and making people believe it.

Let me quote Professor Richard Lewontin again whose words explain quite well why scientists proclaim the Big-Bang theory and Evolution although they know exactly that it's not the truth.
Lewinton is a leading evolutionary geneticist and claimed to speak for many when he confessed: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Dr Colin Patterson, the British Museum’s senior palaeontologist, said: „Nine-tenth of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum there is not a partical of evidence for the transmutation of species." Speaking in New York City, at the American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, Patterson said:

„Last year I had a sudden realization that for over 20 years I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long… so for the last few weeks I’ve been putting a simple question to various people… Can you tell me anything you know about evolution… any one thing that is true? I tried the question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said: „I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.""

Whole groups of evolutionists could not tell a single thing about evolution that is true. Scientists know that their theory is utter nonsense, but they don't have a better answer for people asking about the world's origin that doesn't include God. So they keep telling the fairy tale of evolution.

Steven J. Gould, late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology at Harvard University, and President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record „persists as the trade secret of palaeontology“. Niles Eldredge agrees, claiming a deception has been taking place: „.
Does this mean that there ARE transitional forms in the fossil record and that, perhaps, evolution is true?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟394,138.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Then why does science continue to teach otherwise?
And why is Catholicism (my background) open to macroevolution?

If I can interject with two summary answers:

Hard science does not teach otherwise. Scientific theories do. There's a very important difference in this. Hard science is on the side of truth, and God's Word is truth, so we have science on our side and have no reason to fear it or question God's Word.

The Roman Catholic Church embraces elements of theoretical science, which includes Macroevolution, because they have opened the doors to Higher Criticism, which is to compromise on God's Word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FaithT
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If I can interject with two summary answers:

Hard science does not teach otherwise. Scientific theories do. There's a very important difference in this. Hard science is on the side of truth, and God's Word is truth, so we have science on our side and have no reason to fear it or question God's Word.
.
But in school they teach that evolution is fact.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟394,138.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
But in school they teach that evolution is fact.

Yeah, public schools in general treat theoretical science as factual. This is shallow and very frustrating. What is taught in school comes from academia, where there are more nuances, debates, and different points of view. But in lower education, we don't always have the opportunity to see the different sides of a debate; we often just get one, as if it's a fact, when it's not. It's very political, and it has been abused by many countries to further different kinds of agendas.

To take a different example where we can see this a bit more clearly: Many, if not most public schools these days subscribe to contemporary gender theory, which is heatedly debated on an academic level. We can see this in social media and in the news as well. Basically, that even though the majority of the world believes in two genders, the elites in western higher education push hard for the view that there are several genders. And because many in higher education agree on this, contrary to science and against all major world religions, it is now being taught in schools as factual.

So, just because school treats something as factual, doesn't mean that it is. And good teachers will point this out. But if the teacher is non-religious, he probably won't - not because of facts, but because of his personal belief.
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, public schools in general treat theoretical science as factual. This is shallow and very frustrating. What is taught in school comes from academia, where there are more nuances, debates, and different points of view. But in lower education, we don't always have the opportunity to see the different sides of a debate; we often just get one, as if it's a fact, when it's not. It's very political, and it has been abused by many countries to further different kinds of agendas.

To take a different example where we can see this a bit more clearly: Many, if not most public schools these days subscribe to contemporary gender theory, which is heatedly debated on an academic level. We can see this in social media and in the news as well. Basically, that even though the majority of the world believes in two genders, the elites in western higher education push hard for the view that there are several genders. And because many in higher education agree on this, contrary to science and against all major world religions, it is now being taught in schools as factual.

So, just because school treats something as factual, doesn't mean that it is. And good teachers will point this out. But if the teacher is non-religious, he probably won't - not because of facts, but because of his personal belief.
Ok, so approx. how many science teachers personally believe in creationism regardless of whether they’re allowed to teach it in the classroom? I’m finding various percentages.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟394,138.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Ok, so approx. how many science teachers personally believe in creationism regardless of whether they’re allowed to teach it in the classroom? I’m finding various percentages.

I have no idea! Perhaps Pew Research Center has done a study related to it. But even if they have, or if there are other extensive and reliable studies on it, I wouldn't recommend taking this as any source of authority for what is and what is not factual. That's a dangerous game to play, because there's no guarantee that the majority is right in any situation. Fact is not determined by majority vote - it's determined by nature itself. It doesn't need to be interpreted.

I believe it's sufficient and more useful to simply recognise that theoretical science is a mixed bag of ideas, which more often than not conflicts with God's Word, so we shouldn't feel the need to try and impose these theories on the Scriptures.

There is always something that is competing with the Bible. In our age, it's the worship of scientific theories and sexual revolution ideologies, but in 100 years, it could be something completely different altogether. God's Word endures forever.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have no idea! Perhaps Pew Research Center has done a study related to it. But even if they have, or if there are other extensive and reliable studies on it, I wouldn't recommend taking this as any source of authority for what is and what is not factual. That's a dangerous game to play, because there's no guarantee that the majority is right in any situation. Fact is not determined by majority vote - it's determined by nature itself. It doesn't need to be interpreted.

I believe it's sufficient and more useful to simply recognise that theoretical science is a mixed bag of ideas, which more often than not conflicts with God's Word, so we shouldn't feel the need to try and impose these theories on the Scriptures.

There is always something that is competing with the Bible. In our age, it's the worship of scientific theories and sexual revolution ideologies, but in 100 years, it could be something completely different altogether. God's Word endures forever.
Yeah, but doctors and other scientists are mostly brilliant,so I rely on their opinions. I do know quite a few doctors who are Christians and I know only one science teacher who happens to be a creationist.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟394,138.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, but doctors and other scientists are mostly brilliant,so I rely on their opinions. I do know quite a few doctors who are Christians and I know only one science teacher who happens to be a creationist.

Well, it's certainly good to trust our doctors and scientists, and you're entitled to your own beliefs. But if Macroevolution is an area that causes you to doubt God's Word or question your faith, that would be a big concern.

The theory of Macroevolution has its roots in the assumption that there is no God. It's only through Higher Criticism that this idea has been fused with the Biblical account.

I made a simple chart to help explain the problem:
chart.jpg


This whole debate is not a matter of "science vs religion", but we have three competing views, none of which can be proven with hard science. They are all different belief systems based on evidence.

Non-Creationist: Assumes there is no God and interprets the universe apart from God. Here it is believed that nature created itself. This is a modern form of the ancient belief called Pantheism, where nature is a kind of creative god, but not a personal God.

Creationist: Believes in God because of the historical account of God working in time and space. We believe in a personal God: Jesus Christ.

Higher Criticism: A fusion of the two views, which doesn't align the views, but makes a third new view. You can think of it as if you mix two colours, for example yellow and blue, you don't harmonise the two colours, but you get a third new colour: green.

Just to recap: They're all different views. Hard science does not disprove the Bible, but theoretical science often attacks the Bible.

Hope that makes sense! Blessings +
 
Upvote 0

Friedrich Rubinstein

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2020
1,243
1,303
Europe
Visit site
✟171,138.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Does this mean that there ARE transitional forms in the fossil record and that, perhaps, evolution is true?

When we use science to get information about the far past then every conclusion depends on the assumptions we make. The same observation can be interpreted in different ways, and the scientist will choose the interpretation that fits their personal world-view. There is no way around it.

Gould, an atheistic paleontologist, speaks of the "extreme rarity of transitional forms". His assumption is that evolution is true, therefore he interprets fossils as transitional forms if that's possible. But Gould says that even when you believe in evolution and try to interpret fossils as transitional forms you will still be able to claim fossils as transitional forms extremely rarely only. There is so little fossils that could be interpreted as transitional forms that you cannot seriously consider evolution based on the fossil record.

These "extremely rare transitional forms" are not necessary transitional even. Bird wings are slightly different to each other but they are bird wings nevertheless. God created them the way they are and even though they are not absolutely identical (because God loves diversity) we cannot plainly assume that a bird developed from another bird just because of the wings.

It becomes more and more common to blindly trust scientists. Most people don't understand that scientists are normal people with a certain world-view that they seek to confirm. Science is not about truth.

Professor Walter L. Bradley, of Texas A&M University, wrote: "Today it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist who is an atheist".
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When we use science to get information about the far past then every conclusion depends on the assumptions we make. The same observation can be interpreted in different ways, and the scientist will choose the interpretation that fits their personal world-view. There is no way around it.

Gould, an atheistic paleontologist, speaks of the "extreme rarity of transitional forms". His assumption is that evolution is true, therefore he interprets fossils as transitional forms if that's possible. But Gould says that even when you believe in evolution and try to interpret fossils as transitional forms you will still be able to claim fossils as transitional forms extremely rarely only. There is so little fossils that could be interpreted as transitional forms that you cannot seriously consider evolution based on the fossil record.

These "extremely rare transitional forms" are not necessary transitional even. Bird wings are slightly different to each other but they are bird wings nevertheless. God created them the way they are and even though they are not absolutely identical (because God loves diversity) we cannot plainly assume that a bird developed from another bird just because of the wings.

It becomes more and more common to blindly trust scientists. Most people don't understand that scientists are normal people with a certain world-view that they seek to confirm. Science is not about truth.

Professor Walter L. Bradley, of Texas A&M University, wrote: "Today it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist who is an atheist".
So then, rather than transitional fossils, they’re probably just the same thing or even a form of microevolution?
 
Upvote 0

Friedrich Rubinstein

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2020
1,243
1,303
Europe
Visit site
✟171,138.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So then, rather than transitional fossils, they’re probably just the same thing or even a form of microevolution?

Yes, you just need to look at dogs today for example. There are many different kinds of dogs, from small to tall, from short-hair to long-hair, almost every size and shape. But they are all still dogs and will always be dogs. Nothing can change their species.
If these different dogs would be found as fossils the scientists would determine the differences in their skeletal structure and try to put them into a family tree - interpreting them as transitional fossils. While there is nothing transitional about today's dogs. It's simply the diversity of the species dog.

This kind of diversity exists for all species, and similar fossils are much more likely to be diversity than "transitional".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I wrote an email to my pastor asking for recommendations on books or something to help me through this and someone recommended to him (to recommend to me) a book called Genes, Genesis and Evolution by John Klotz. The book was written in 1955! I’ve already seen it on Amazon and passed it over due to its being WAY out of date.
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok.....say they found a “missing link” which I believe they’ve thought they had. (Were they found to be wrong about those discoveries?) or rocks that date a million years old, what are LCMS Lutherans supposed to do about their faith when soooooooooooo many experts say these show macroevolution to be true?
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, it's certainly good to trust our doctors and scientists, and you're entitled to your own beliefs. But if Macroevolution is an area that causes you to doubt God's Word or question your faith, that would be a big concern.
Yes, this is a big concern of mine.
 
Upvote 0

Friedrich Rubinstein

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2020
1,243
1,303
Europe
Visit site
✟171,138.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I could write now a 3-page long explanation why the dating methods that are used by scientists are not reliable, but maybe you'd prefer getting a good book about the topic.

Here are some recommendations:

1) In six days - Why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation, edited by John F. Ashton PhD

2) Thousands, Not Billions by The R.A.T.E. Project Team at Institute for Creation Research

3) The Answers Book (any volumes) by Ken Ham and associates

4) Dating Rocks and Fossils, video presentation by Mike Riddle

5) How Old Is the Earth? by Eugene Sattler

6) “The Collapse Of ‘Geologic Time’”, by Steve Taylor, Andy McIntosh, and Tas Walker, Creation, September 2001

7) Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflict, Andrew Snelling, Creation, December 1997.

8) The Young Earth, Dr. John Morris

9) The Young Age of the Earth DVD

10) Starlight and Time, Dr. Russell Humphreys
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟394,138.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yes, this is a big concern of mine.

I’m very sorry to hear that! Let me just say, first of all, that you will not go to hell if you believe in Macroevolution. Many Christians do.

However, I believe this to be very problematic for the reasons mentioned above, namely because this is an unsuccessful attempt to explain the miracle of creation. It is an attempt to harmonise what is essentially Pantheism (the unscientific belief that nature created itself) with Christianity. Macroevolution, simply, is not hard factual science, but consists of different competing theories.

We do well to trust God’s Word, and to remember that what is created out of nothing cannot be measured.
 
Upvote 0