How do some Christians justify belief in evolution?

[ALoveDivine]

Tell me, why do you think that the overwhelming majority of biologists are convinced that evolution is true? Because they are complete idiots who don't know what they are talking about? Because they are involved in a huge global conspiracy against Christianity, and one in which large numbers of Christians seem to be involved in?

No. I myself believed in evolution for a long time. And in no way am I saying its a salvation issue, or that there are not many genuine Christians who believe in some version of evolution. There are many brothers and sisters in Christ who accept evolution as being true. I just do not.

Why do I not? Because God says he created everything in six days. God says it, so that's what I believe. I don't care what the majority of scientists believe, or what is considered to be beyond dispute. At the end of the day the wisdom of the world is just that, the wisdom of this world. Its a matter of trust. Do we trust what man says, or do we trust what God says? I'll go with God.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

I take God at his word, and I believe he says what he means and means what he says. If he says he created the universe in six days, I believe it. If i'm wrong then i'm wrong, but I will accept, by faith, the plain meaning of God's word, even if it runs contrary to our human reason and/or scientific enterprise.

 

[Hoghead1]

"See to it that no one take you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" Colossians 2:8

I think many Christians accept evolution because we do not heed this warning of Paul. I myself used to accept evolution, as a Christian, for a very long time. Until recently actually. Lets be clear, the evolutionary paradigm, or philosophy really, is just that, a worldly philosophy. It is a product of human imagination. Biological and geological evidence is interpreted through a philosophical lens of uniformitarian naturalism. Science itself cannot exist without certain philosophical presuppositions. Methodological naturalism is built into the very nature of science itself.

So if creation was a supernatural miracle, science would not, by its very nature, be able to determine that at all. It would be constrained by its philosophic presuppositions to interpret all the evidence through a naturalistic lens which precludes the miraculous. As a little thought experiment, imagine if we one day created a computer program complete with digital beings who had a self-reflective consciousness. Now imagine they used science, with all its built-in presuppositions, to answer questions about their world. They may come up with a theory about the slow, gradual evolution of their world from simplicity to complexity, and it would all makes sense of the evidence they had. Yet, they'd be wrong, in reality their digital world and their digital selves were created by intelligent designers.

So it is with us. It is no surprise that we come up with a billions of years old universe and notions of macroevolution when we rely on human philosophy and empirical methodology to learn about the world, and do not submit ourselves to God's revealed truth. Creation was a supernatural miracle, science by its very nature can say NOTHING about it. As the people of God we ought to accept the plain teachings of Genesis by faith, without trying to force fit them into human philosophical paradigms.

Yes, but see, the same applies to you. Your argument is weak because it backfires. You, too, are viewing Scripture through a lens, the lens provided by Christian fundamentalaistic ideology, which is a man-made religion with man-made dogmas.

 

[Hoghead1]

I understand that. But that is not to say the verse doesn't have a wider application. It is applicable to all ideas and philosophies of man that run contrary to the revealed word of God. Gnosticism and darwinian evolution both seem to fit into that category, at least as far as I can see.

Yes, but see, it all depends on how you interpret the Bible. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone views Scripture through a lens. For many, that lens is traditional church teachings. Now, according to Christian fundamentalaistic ideology, the Bible has to be inerrant. However, that is according to a man-made religious ideology. Appealing as it may be for some, that is about the worst way to come to serious biblical studies. One should come with a more open mind. One should view Scripture through the lens created by a healthy skepticism for traditional teachings. The inerrancy of Scripture is simply a man-made theory about how God and Scripture may be related. Maybe it is true, maybe not. Let's test it out. Now I submit that it doesn't test out at all. There are about 100 well -documented contradictions in Scripture . It's geophysics has been debunked by science since the 16th century. Therefore, we need to rethink how God is related to Scripture. Maybe God never intended Scripture to be an accurate scientific witness. God always works with the grain. Given God was dealing with a prescientific people, it would be ridiculous to expect God would reveal advanced scientific knowledge to them. We all have to remember that divinely inspired as the Bible may be, it is still the product of a prescientific culture with very different values from ours and so it is very much conditioned and limited by those terms.

 

[Hoghead1]

No. I myself believed in evolution for a long time. And in no way am I saying its a salvation issue, or that there are not many genuine Christians who believe in some version of evolution. There are many brothers and sisters in Christ who accept evolution as being true. I just do not.

Why do I not? Because God says he created everything in six days. God says it, so that's what I believe. I don't care what the majority of scientists believe, or what is considered to be beyond dispute. At the end of the day the wisdom of the world is just that, the wisdom of this world. Its a matter of trust. Do we trust what man says, or do we trust what God says? I'll go with God.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

I take God at his word, and I believe he says what he means and means what he says. If he says he created the universe in six days, I believe it. If i'm wrong then i'm wrong, but I will accept, by faith, the plain meaning of God's word, even if it runs contrary to our human reason and/or scientific enterprise.

That being the case, the same applies to you. You are going on Christian fundamentalist ideology. Now that is a man-made religion. So it would seem you are putting a lot of trust in human wisdom yourself.

 

[ALoveDivine]

You, too, are viewing Scripture through a lens, the lens provided by Christian fundamentalaistic ideology, which is a man-made religion with man-made dogmas.

Not really, I'm just believing what it says. I don't think God intended it to be unclear. His word is clear and straightforward, we should read it like we'd read anything else. We don't need to allegorize everything we are uncomfortable with, we ought to just believe what it says. This is why I don't fit into any denomination. I don't follow any particular systematic theology. I'm a post-tribulation premillenial 4-point calvinist young-earth creationist, not because that puts me right at home into some denomination or well-packaged theological system (it doesn't!), but simply because the bible seems to plainly affirm those things.

Now, according to Christian fundamentalaistic ideology, the Bible has to be inerrant. However, that is according to a man-made religious ideology.

Well Paul refers to the scriptures as "God breathed". So if you believe the Apostle Paul, at minimum you must believe that the Old Testament is inerrant. Paul and other new testament writers put new testament writings, including the Gospels and Paul's epistles, on the same level as Old Testament scripture, so if you believe all of them you can logically conclude that the New Testament is inerrant. Put all that together and you have an inerrant bible.

There are about 100 well -documented contradictions in Scripture .

Not one that's withstood serious scrutiny. Our lack of understanding as to how different verses relate is not the same as a contradiction. I don't know how human free will and God's absolute sovereignty over everything relate, but I believe in both of them. That's not a contradiction, just a paradox beyond the scope of human reason.

Given God was dealing with a prescientific people, it would be ridiculous to expect God would reveal advanced scientific knowledge to them.

I'm not saying the bible is a science textbook. Yet I also don't think God would plainly say he created the universe in six days, if he actually didn't create it in six days. God doesn't lie. IF you believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, it is hard to deny the doctrine of biblical creationism.

 

[Jason Sanders]

Edit: How even...

 

[Jason Sanders]

The problem, to be honest, isn't with the concept of "Evolution" as a whole, but rather with a very specific (and in my mind ridiculous) term know as Macro-Evolution, aka the "Fish turns into frog turns into bird turns into monkey turns into man" model that supposes all life has a single common ancestor that created a new generation with tiny alterations in its genetic code that built up into massive changes over millios (possibly even billions) of years.

THAT part if evolutionary theory is just bonkers, but micro-evolution, stuff that happens within a species (and doesn't somehow turn it into an entirely different type of animal) is entirely realistic and backed up by a wealth of scientific observation. Nothing says science and Christianity have to be at odds- truth be told, they tend to agree on a lot of things, and not just on the big, sweeping things like the universe having a beginning.

Regardless, that's just my two cents- feel free to disagree with me if you want.

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem, to be honest, isn't with the concept of "Evolution" as a whole, but rather with a very specific (and in my mind ridiculous) term know as Macro-Evolution, aka the "Fish turns into frog turns into bird turns into monkey turns into man" model that supposes all life has a single common ancestor that created a new generation with tiny alterations in its genetic code that built up into massive changes over millios (possibly even billions) of years.

THAT part if evolutionary theory is just bonkers, but micro-evolution, stuff that happens within a species (and doesn't somehow turn it into an entirely different type of animal) is entirely realistic and backed up by a wealth of scientific observation. Nothing says science and Christianity have to be at odds- truth be told, they tend to agree on a lot of things, and not just on the big, sweeping things like the universe having a beginning.

Regardless, that's just my two cents- feel free to disagree with me if you want.

First of all, the distinction between micro- and macro- evolution is used in creation-science circles, but not at all in the real world of science. Secondly, evolution does not claim that one day there were dinosaurs and the next they suddenly turned into birds. The process of evolution is very slow with lots of intermediate steps

 

[Hoghead1]

Not really, I'm just believing what it says. I don't think God intended it to be unclear. His word is clear and straightforward, we should read it like we'd read anything else. We don't need to allegorize everything we are uncomfortable with, we ought to just believe what it says. This is why I don't fit into any denomination. I don't follow any particular systematic theology. I'm a post-tribulation premillenial 4-point calvinist young-earth creationist, not because that puts me right at home into some denomination or well-packaged theological system (it doesn't!), but simply because the bible seems to plainly affirm those things.


Well Paul refers to the scriptures as "God breathed". So if you believe the Apostle Paul, at minimum you must believe that the Old Testament is inerrant. Paul and other new testament writers put new testament writings, including the Gospels and Paul's epistles, on the same level as Old Testament scripture, so if you believe all of them you can logically conclude that the New Testament is inerrant. Put all that together and you have an inerrant bible.


Not one that's withstood serious scrutiny. Our lack of understanding as to how different verses relate is not the same as a contradiction. I don't know how human free will and God's absolute sovereignty over everything relate, but I believe in both of them. That's not a contradiction, just a paradox beyond the scope of human reason.


I'm not saying the bible is a science textbook. Yet I also don't think God would plainly say he created the universe in six days, if he actually didn't create it in six days. God doesn't lie. IF you believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, it is hard to deny the doctrine of biblical creationism.

No, the contradictions stand. There are some online creation-science-type sites where some self-appointed authority claims he can easily explain away the contradictions. But that has yet to really happen. All they do is con the laity by offering bogus solutions. For example, in the original Hebrew texts, 2 Sam 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. Now that certainly is a major contradiction. So some online "experts" tried to explain it away by saying there were really two giants named Goliath who were from the same town, both warriors and both looked identical. I mean, c'mon. Actually, Genesis presents two conflicting chronologies. Gen. 1 says first animals , then man and women together. Gen. 2 says first man, then animals, then woman. Now, seeing that these same online "experts" have tried all sorts of ruses to explain away the contradiction. However, they all prove to be bogus. If you want, I can easily provide you with a summary of the contradictions and bogus solutions.
Next, the fact Paul says all Scripture is inspired by God does not mean it has to be inerrant. There are many useful teaching tools that are hardly inerrant, for example. In addition, Paul does snot specify what counts as Scripture here. Is he counting his own letters? Just the OT? What?
Without realizing it, people do in fact real Scripture through a lens. True, they make think they are getting all this straight from the Bible, but in point of fact their understanding is subconsciously very much shaped by the expectations about Scripture their church and culture taught them to have. Largely, viewing Scripture as inerrant is found among the Bible Belt and fundamentalaistic Christians. More liberal and also neo-orthodox Christians find the inerrancy theory to be unrealistic.

 

[lismore]

Because they are complete idiots who don't know what they are talking about? Because they are involved in a huge global conspiracy against Christianity, and one in which large numbers of Christians seem to be involved in?

'Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?'