• 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.

Have you ever met an anti-evolution Christian who understood the basics of evolution?

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟25,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
EXACTLY...

The bible bashers refuse to debate what genesis ACTUALLY says and love to attack the doctrines that medieval men taught about Genesis before any of the science necessary to really understand the story was even imaged, let alone established.

These people actually SUPPORT you and your archaic "book report" on Genesis because that they can crush with facts and science.
The problem is that what genesis ACTUALLY says seems to be as diverse as there are christians. You and AV being good examples as completely different 'proper' readings of genesis.

So there really is no way to argue with genesis since its always 'not what genesis says' for somebody, the only option is to argue against the interpretations of people who claim they know what it says.

The people who already belief like you that genesis should be read to match reality arent causing harm, unlike the people who think the litteral reading should be used to dictate what reality is and oppose everything that says differently (namely science and education.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Genesis actually can be shown to support cosmic evolution starting with recognition that the Big Bang was the "In the beginning moment when God created the heavens and the earth...

... albeit a first "spark" that took 13.5 billion Earth years to expand as we see today.

Every verse in Genesis finds scientific support when one reads what is written with the mind set and knowledge of the science that confirms the event.

For instance, a Pangea-like singular ocean surround one giant continent is basically described in Gwn 1:9 which says, "all the waters under heaven were gathered together into one place."
How does genesis explain this: (there is a short pause between the parts)
Human Ape | Watch Free Documentary Online
 
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Have you ever met an anti-evolution Christian who could define the Theory of Evolution and understood the science of what he/she was talking about?

(I'm not implying that anti-evolution Christians who understand evolution do not exist. I'm asking whether they are sufficiently common such that you've actually met one.)

In my experience, despite decades in Evangelical ministry and both Christian and secular university environments, I've met few anti-evolution Christians who avoided confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory, just to mention the most common myths which circulate in such circles.

Obviously, my question is not soliciting a rehash of how passionately some disdain the theory of evolution. I'm focusing on the question of whether you've actually met any Christian evolution-opponents who understood what they opposed.

Oh, I definitely have. There are some Christians who are smart and understand the biology, but despite it all still feel theologically obligated to not accept evolutionary theory for whatever reason.
 
Upvote 0
H

Huram Abi

Guest
For instance, a Pangea-like singular ocean surround one giant continent is basically described in Gwn 1:9 which says, "all the waters under heaven were gathered together into one place."


And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The ninth verse describes the first appearance of land whatsoever which is followed by the emergence of land plants. That may be consistent with what one would expect in the natural world, but it doesn't support your idea that this passage is about Pangea.

The first plants emerged during the end of the Ordovician period into the Silurian period. Jawed and bony fish also developed at this time.

At that time the supercontinents were Gondwana and Laurasia (someone may want to fact check the accuracy and completeness of this assertion regarding the continents other than Gondwana).

The Panthalassa Ocean covered most of the northern hemisphere, but was not the only ocean and was bordered by the Proto-Tethys Ocean to the south, seperated from Panthalassa by island arcs and Kazakhstania.

By the time that Gondwana and Laurasia came together to form Pangea as a single continent and the Tethys became part of Panthalassa as you suppose Gen 1:9 refers to, plants were well established.

In summary, here is the order of the emergence of these:

1) Sun and Moon (4.5 billion years ago)
2) Animals (620-550 mya during the Vendian Period)
3) Plants (Ordovician period 450 mya)
4) A single supercontinent (300 million years ago)

And here is your order:

1) A single supercontinent (Gen 1:9)
2) Plants (Gen 1:11)
3) Sun and Moon (Gen 1:16)
4) Animals (Gen 1:20)


As far as science is concerned, your order is way off.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Have you ever met an anti-evolution Christian who could define the Theory of Evolution and understood the science of what he/she was talking about?

(I'm not implying that anti-evolution Christians who understand evolution do not exist. I'm asking whether they are sufficiently common such that you've actually met one.)

In my experience, despite decades in Evangelical ministry and both Christian and secular university environments, I've met few anti-evolution Christians who avoided confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory, just to mention the most common myths which circulate in such circles.

Obviously, my question is not soliciting a rehash of how passionately some disdain the theory of evolution. I'm focusing on the question of whether you've actually met any Christian evolution-opponents who understood what they opposed.

The majority of them don't understand the TOE. Especially newbies who come here filled with fire and brimstone from some "Creation Ministry" website. However, there are certainly exceptions. For example, my buddy AVET did a pretty good job of defending the evo position in a thread where we were all invited to defend the other side's position.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The majority of them don't understand the TOE. Especially newbies who come here filled with fire and brimstone from some "Creation Ministry" website. However, there are certainly exceptions. For example, my buddy AVET did a pretty good job of defending the evo position in a thread where we were all invited to defend the other side's position.

Oh, links please!!! :)
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I would imagine that some of the scientists who support young Earth creationism do have a fairly complete knowledge of evolution and choose to reject it because they believe that accepting it would be to dump their faith by the wayside. Some of them are very honest in saying that there is evidence for evolution. I disagree with their argument that Christianity and evolution are antithetical, obviously.
Good point. I'm reminded of the YEC biologist, don't remember her name, whose interview with Michael Shermer was a topic of conversation here a while ago. From what she said, it seemed that evolution is actually relevant to her work, but she avoided calling it that throughout the interview. "Just change". I don't know if using it while refusing to acknowledge that you're doing so counts as understanding, though.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Good point. I'm reminded of the YEC biologist, don't remember her name, whose interview with Michael Shermer was a topic of conversation here a while ago. From what she said, it seemed that evolution is actually relevant to her work, but she avoided calling it that throughout the interview. "Just change". I don't know if using it while refusing to acknowledge that you're doing so counts as understanding, though.

If memory serves, that was Dr. Georgia Purdom who is a "staff scientists" (or whatever the title would be) at Answers in Genesis. The interview may even have taken place in the museum's "restaurant dining" area. [I may be wrong. I haven't tried to look it up.]

(By the way, Dr. Purdom wrote an article on the Answers in Genesis website complaining about my comments about AiG's new "baraminology project". It struck me as very strange that with her legitimate doctorate in life sciences, she nevertheless consulted and quoted an email from a veterinarian friend who worked with AiG [rather than speaking from her own background] to answer my observations and skepticism about their alleged "original, scientific research" into the Genesis "kinds". AiG denies the theory of evolution and yet promotes a "hyper-speed evolution" (without calling it that) during the first century or two after Noah's Flood in order to explain what they acknowledge is tremendous diversity of species on the earth today.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If memory serves, that was Dr. Georgia Purdom who is a "staff scientists" (or whatever the title would be) at Answers in Genesis. The interview may even have taken place in the museum's "restaurant dining" area. [I may be wrong. I haven't tried to look it up.]
Yes, that's probably the one.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh, I definitely have. There are some Christians who are smart and understand the biology, but despite it all still feel theologically obligated to not accept evolutionary theory for whatever reason.

Those that I encounter tend to take a tangental approach to the subject and most tend to be OECs or Gappers. They focus primarily on ID or God of the Gaps arguments and argue against "Darwinism" which, for them, basically means atheism. I think many of them would be just fine taking a TE approach, but feel there's so much atheistic taint on evolutionary theory, they can't bring themselves to be other than old earth progressive creationists.
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
Those that I encounter tend to take a tangental approach to the subject and most tend to be OECs or Gappers. They focus primarily on ID or God of the Gaps arguments and argue against "Darwinism" which, for them, basically means atheism. I think many of them would be just fine taking a TE approach, but feel there's so much atheistic taint on evolutionary theory, they can't bring themselves to be other than old earth progressive creationists.


It is good for society that the religious community is a brake on change, in genral.

The Instinct of Motherhood is at work, worrying if the radical ideas of just one or two generations are so well founded as to change behaviors and beliefs that have evolved over millennia.

Foolish people have little faith in their own theory, that we have evolved precisely because we have correctly adapted to the cever chnaging environment,... so far.

With that in mind, it is good not to jump to conclusins and discard age old ideas too quickly.

The church is and has been "catching up" with science.
Patiece is a virtue here.
There is no immediate reason to dump all Bible interpretations, only an opportunity to re-evaluate them.
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
The problem is that what genesis ACTUALLY says seems to be as diverse as there are christians. You and AV being good examples as completely different 'proper' readings of genesis.

So there really is no way to argue with genesis since its always 'not what genesis says' for somebody, the only option is to argue against the interpretations of people who claim they know what it says.

The people who already belief like you that genesis should be read to match reality arent causing harm, unlike the people who think the litteral reading should be used to dictate what reality is and oppose everything that says differently (namely science and education.)


You are right.

The argument isn't with believers and advocates of the Bible.
The issue concerns Bill Maher and the anti-christians who try to discredit scripture as passe' and incorrect, scientifically.

Remebr that Christ came for the unsaved not those who already believe in God.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are right.

The argument isn't with believers and advocates of the Bible.
The issue concerns Bill Maher and the anti-christians who try to discredit scripture as passe' and incorrect, scientifically.

Remebr that Christ came for the unsaved not those who already believe in God.

No, the issue concerns plants and animals, which ones came first?
 
Upvote 0
H

Huram Abi

Guest
You are right.


The issue concerns Bill Maher and the anti-christians who try to discredit scripture as passe' and incorrect, scientifically.
.

People like Bill Maher aren't concerned with if the bible conflicts with scientific claims.

As far as they are concerned, the scripture is already discredited. They just want people to stop being Christians because it is probably the only way they can see that they can stop the war on gays, women's health, , scientific inquiry, education ect that fundamentalists continue to fight.

Even if it could be shown that the bible IS a science book, Bill Mayer would probably point out that it isn't evidence that Jesus was God.

The issue isn't about anybody who isn't in the Christian community. It is about the failure of Christians to self-police and to recognize that scripture is only applicable to them on a personal level, whether they take it literally or not and doesn't give us the right to impose things, especially that we can't empirically prove, on the rest of society.
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Have you ever met an anti-evolution Christian who could define the Theory of Evolution and understood the science of what he/she was talking about?

(I'm not implying that anti-evolution Christians who understand evolution do not exist. I'm asking whether they are sufficiently common such that you've actually met one.)

In my experience, despite decades in Evangelical ministry and both Christian and secular university environments, I've met few anti-evolution Christians who avoided confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory, just to mention the most common myths which circulate in such circles.

Obviously, my question is not soliciting a rehash of how passionately some disdain the theory of evolution. I'm focusing on the question of whether you've actually met any Christian evolution-opponents who understood what they opposed.
Nope.
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
No, the issue concerns plants and animals, which ones came first?


Well the Plant Kingdom was established before the Animal kingdom because the animals needed the oxygen that wasn't there until 2 billion year after first life appeared.

oxygenappears.jpg
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
People like Bill Maher aren't concerned with if the bible conflicts with scientific claims.

As far as they are concerned, the scripture is already discredited. They just want people to stop being Christians because it is probably the only way they can see that they can stop the war on gays, women's health, , scientific inquiry, education ect that fundamentalists continue to fight.

Even if it could be shown that the bible IS a science book, Bill Mayer would probably point out that it isn't evidence that Jesus was God.

The issue isn't about anybody who isn't in the Christian community. It is about the failure of Christians to self-police and to recognize that scripture is only applicable to them on a personal level, whether they take it literally or not and doesn't give us the right to impose things, especially that we can't empirically prove, on the rest of society.

You are right.

And of course, religious people are just the shock troops, or the supporting audience, that are needed to back up an argument against any promotion of Gay or straight sex promiscuity.

The FACTS now are available to show that a sexually promiscuous society creates broken families and single never maried mothers who raise kids that represent the nation's social problems




 
Upvote 0