I feel like the only Christian who believes in evolution.

[ArmyMatt]

Hebrews 13:2

You see "Angels every time", I acknowledge it "could be Angels every time", maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle

sorry, I don't follow...?

 

[MoneyGuy]

To believe in evolution is to not believe in God being the creator of all things.

Not necessarily. I believe evolution is God's tool. Just like here.

The Language of God - Wikipedia

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Lost Tools of Learning- Dorothy Sayers - Association of Classical Christian Schools (ACCS)

This is a diagram of it:
Sayers Classical Academy » On Classical Education

I meant to say thank you for these Rus. I have been looking at them. They are along the lines of what I ran into years ago as I was setting up my curriculum plans, but divergent too. I had meant to get back to you after I finished and thought about it for a while.

 

[Erik Nelson]

sorry, I don't follow...?

Paul states that sometimes people entertained Angels, unaware, thinking they were human travelers... so he tells the Hebrews to "play it safe" and care for strangers "just in case"... not that every stranger is an Angel...

that's like my current sense of Scripture, that Divine Presence is potentially existent at every time & place, but not necessarily actually so...

whereas you're making a stronger claim, that Divine Presence is always existent at every time & place -- as if Paul had told the Hebrews that every single visitor was really an Angelic being

 

[ArmyMatt]

Paul states that sometimes people entertained Angels, unaware, thinking they were human travelers... so he tells the Hebrews to "play it safe" and care for strangers "just in case"... not that every stranger is an Angel...

that's like my current sense of Scripture, that Divine Presence is potentially existent at every time & place, but not necessarily actually so...

whereas you're making a stronger claim, that Divine Presence is always existent at every time & place -- as if Paul had told the Hebrews that every single visitor was really an Angelic being

angels are not omnipresent, God is.

 

[Erik Nelson]

angels are not omnipresent, God is.

yes, of course, just drawing a comparison

 

[ArmyMatt]

yes, of course, just drawing a comparison

so then if God is omnipresent, His presence is never potential, but actual.

 

[Erik Nelson]

so then if God is omnipresent, His presence is never potential, but actual.

Omnipresent doesn't necessarily mean "ever active"... there would be a difference, say, between holding a remote control aimed at a TV... and actually pressing the buttons to affect the TV... the former would be "potentially present but inactive at the moment", the latter would be "present & active"

still my current understanding that Divine Presence is not always "active" at every single place & time... God in heaven could send Scripture to human Prophets on earth round the clock... However, God in heaven has only chosen to send such messages to humans sporadically, about once per century on average... not for lack of ability, but merely because the messages from God in heaven are always so powerful that they "reverberate in human history" for centuries & millennia, such that God has no need to "pull the trigger every single second".

"God is omnipresent, active occasionally, judiciously, effectively, efficiently" is still my current understanding... but your stronger claim could certainly be true, and their may be certain places & times where Divine Presence is active continuously for a prolonged span of time

 

[ArmyMatt]

Omnipresent doesn't necessarily mean "ever active"... there would be a difference, say, between holding a remote control aimed at a TV... and actually pressing the buttons to affect the TV... the former would be "potentially present but inactive at the moment", the latter would be "present & active"

still my current understanding that Divine Presence is not always "active" at every single place & time... God in heaven could send Scripture to human Prophets on earth round the clock... However, God in heaven has only chosen to send such messages to humans sporadically, about once per century on average... not for lack of ability, but merely because the messages from God in heaven are always so powerful that they "reverberate in human history" for centuries & millennia, such that God has no need to "pull the trigger every single second".

"God is omnipresent, active occasionally, judiciously, effectively, efficiently" is still my current understanding... but your stronger claim could certainly be true, and their may be certain places & times where Divine Presence is active continuously for a prolonged span of time

while not Scripture, God does send His saints all the time. and He is the one Who sends and guides them. He might not be working in a way we expect, but He is always working.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I know some folks believe that God created the cosmos and then stepped back, but I have wondered how it's possible to have that view (at least if you accept Scripture)?

Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together

places the continued existence of all things within Christ. And many times the OT mentions God doing such things as sending or withholding weather, seeing the animals and man to be fed, and much more.

What would be the point of praying for anything if we don't believe God interacts with Creation?

In truth, our every breath is given by Him. He IS that involved with us, if He knows the very number of hairs on our heads.

 

[Erik Nelson]

yes, Scripture shows that God in heaven is always actively aware of, and often intervenes into, the course of events on Earth

I'm not sure Scripture depicts God as actively intervening into every single place at every single time ("every single (x,t) space-time event")

God intervenes enough to hold everything together for Divine Plan, still not 100% sure that means every single place at every single moment of time -- yet certainly perhaps, not denying the possibility

 

[ArmyMatt]

yes, Scripture shows that God in heaven is always actively aware of, and often intervenes into, the course of events on Earth

I'm not sure Scripture depicts God as actively intervening into every single place at every single time ("every single (x,t) space-time event")

God intervenes enough to hold everything together for Divine Plan, still not 100% sure that means every single place at every single moment of time -- yet certainly perhaps, not denying the possibility

it's because divine action is not the same as created action. you are looking at how God works via the way we do, and you can't do that.

 

[Erik Nelson]

it's because divine action is not the same as created action. you are looking at how God works via the way we do, and you can't do that.

maybe you can clarify your remarks? Scripture does not obviously describe God as a "micro-manager", controlling the exact motion of every molecule in Earth's atmosphere at all times

God can and has worked up storms, but may not be a "micro-manager"

 

[ArmyMatt]

maybe you can clarify your remarks? Scripture does not obviously describe God as a "micro-manager", controlling the exact motion of every molecule in Earth's atmosphere at all times

God can and has worked up storms, but may not be a "micro-manager"

well, God's divine action is His grace. the fact that the universe is sustained at all is because of His divine power and will. just because His works are everywhere present, that doesn't mean He is a micromanager because, again, He doesn't work the way we do.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

It seems like your post is mostly about what else people assume about you if you believe in evolution. That's actually a bit of flipping the tables. I'm more used to some preconceived ideas about what people who don't believe in evolution also believe.

Yes, there is a group who don't believe in a kind of just closing their eyes way almost out of fear. There are others who don't believe for various reasons theological or science-based (or psuedo-science-based). But people are sometimes only familiar with one kind of group do they may lump everyone in with that.

It sounds like the same thing happened to you in reverse. I'm sorry for any tensions or problems it might have caused you. And once again - "FB orthodoxy" isn't always representative of the Church and isn't always a safe place to be.

A "sarcastic Orthodox group" is already approaching a bit of a contradiction in ethos, IMO.

FWIW, I have mostly stopped explaining or debating. My background is in science, and I accepted and taught evolution until I tried to do my job a bit better and started finding the problems there. My belief in evolution was eroded by academic science (not the stuff that sometimes passes for "creation science" that is frankly embarrassing at times). But when I really came to rational faith and fully examined things, I found good theological reasons to disagree with it as well.

But as it happens, if I and others are wrong on some things, it wouldn't shake the foundations of either my scientific or theological beliefs. I just seriously doubt those other possible ways of understanding will turn out to be true.

Overall though, I find it a topic best not discussed - like politics these days lol.

God be with you.

I didn't know you had a background in science. The main reason I believe in evolution is because we have similarities, both anatomical and genetic, with animals. Why would God make us so similar if we were not related?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I didn't know you had a background in science. The main reason I believe in evolution is because we have similarities, both anatomical and genetic, with animals. Why would God make us so similar if we were not related?

Well ... how similar is similar?

I often hear it suggested that God used the same "building blocks" and the same "plans" for various animals. And that's true in a sense.

How different would have us be? Having a different number of eyes or limbs? Requiring a different source of energy for metabolism? Requiring a different gas or concentration of gas to breathe? To not be carbon-based at all?

Think about this ... if humans and monkeys and birds were completely dissimilar from one another, down to a metabolic level, such that they could not all eat fruit (among other things), then a different ecosystem would be required to support each one. If oxygen needs were different, we couldn't even survive on the same planet.

The created world was made to be in incredible harmony with itself. The delicate balance of many systems of animals, plants, and the natural world support each other in many intricate ways. And we and the animals all need to survive in the same system, eating the same foods (broadly), breathing the same air (even fishes etc. who are specialized to draw oxygen from water), and drinking the same water. So on a very basic level we NEED to be the same in order to exist together.

Beyond that there ARE differences, if you examine all creatures. Two limbs, four, six, eight, many, or none. Two eyes, many, none, or one "kind of" eye. Crawling, swimming, flying, walking (on two legs or four or more). Vast differences in our sensory systems. Skin, fur, hair, scales, feathers, chitin, etc. of every color. Differences in reproduction, behavior, and many kinds of strategies.

Of course these are things that evolutionary theory has its own ideas about. But my point is - we MUST be the same to a certain degree to coexist within ecosystems. And when a certain body system "works" (like being able to see, or digest food) it is reasonable that it should benefit many kinds of creatures? Even so, those similarities always vary between groups of creatures. Yet if you consider how alike we may be to be "proof" of relationship, it makes even more sense (IMO) to consider how the extreme outliers who are very different came to exist? Sometimes there are extreme examples of differences between creatures that intermediary forms would suffer as they were "evolving" so it isn't reasonable to think that one could evolve from another.

I'm not sure if this helps? It depends on what level you are asking the question, which I should have asked first, but since I've written all of this I'll post it. Feel free to ask again if I didn't answer your question, and I'll try again.

 

[rusmeister]

I didn't know you had a background in science. The main reason I believe in evolution is because we have similarities, both anatomical and genetic, with animals. Why would God make us so similar if we were not related?

You know, both GK Chesterton and CS Lewis were highly intelligent Christians who started out believing the claims of modern science, but later in life, came increasingly to doubt them. Have you ever heard of Chesterton's book, "The Everlasting Man"? It was the book that first turned Lewis against his own hitherto firm atheism. In the book, Chesterton examines how man is different from all the other animals, and how Christ is different from all founders of religions, even from all other men.
A short intro to the book:

And the text itself:
The Everlasting Man

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Well ... how similar is similar?

I often hear it suggested that God used the same "building blocks" and the same "plans" for various animals. And that's true in a sense.

How different would have us be? Having a different number of eyes or limbs? Requiring a different source of energy for metabolism? Requiring a different gas or concentration of gas to breathe? To not be carbon-based at all?

Think about this ... if humans and monkeys and birds were completely dissimilar from one another, down to a metabolic level, such that they could not all eat fruit (among other things), then a different ecosystem would be required to support each one. If oxygen needs were different, we couldn't even survive on the same planet.

The created world was made to be in incredible harmony with itself. The delicate balance of many systems of animals, plants, and the natural world support each other in many intricate ways. And we and the animals all need to survive in the same system, eating the same foods (broadly), breathing the same air (even fishes etc. who are specialized to draw oxygen from water), and drinking the same water. So on a very basic level we NEED to be the same in order to exist together.

Beyond that there ARE differences, if you examine all creatures. Two limbs, four, six, eight, many, or none. Two eyes, many, none, or one "kind of" eye. Crawling, swimming, flying, walking (on two legs or four or more). Vast differences in our sensory systems. Skin, fur, hair, scales, feathers, chitin, etc. of every color. Differences in reproduction, behavior, and many kinds of strategies.

Of course these are things that evolutionary theory has its own ideas about. But my point is - we MUST be the same to a certain degree to coexist within ecosystems. And when a certain body system "works" (like being able to see, or digest food) it is reasonable that it should benefit many kinds of creatures? Even so, those similarities always vary between groups of creatures. Yet if you consider how alike we may be to be "proof" of relationship, it makes even more sense (IMO) to consider how the extreme outliers who are very different came to exist? Sometimes there are extreme examples of differences between creatures that intermediary forms would suffer as they were "evolving" so it isn't reasonable to think that one could evolve from another.

I'm not sure if this helps? It depends on what level you are asking the question, which I should have asked first, but since I've written all of this I'll post it. Feel free to ask again if I didn't answer your question, and I'll try again.

We could have tiny similarities to allow us to eat the same things. We can eat a lot of the same things ants can eat. I don't see why God would make animals with such massive genetic similarities.

 

[Tutorman]

We could have tiny similarities to allow us to eat the same things. We can eat a lot of the same things ants can eat. I don't see why God would make animals with such massive genetic similarities.

Why not? You make a pot and a vase, and whatever else they have similarities because you made them. You write music and even across many genres it would still have similarities. That is why I an more than confident that God created everything because everything has similarities, if evolution were even remotely true and the Scriptures and the Fathers were a lie nothing would be similar but everything would be different

 

[~Anastasia~]

We could have tiny similarities to allow us to eat the same things. We can eat a lot of the same things ants can eat. I don't see why God would make animals with such massive genetic similarities.

I have to agree with why not? It's an intricate and amazingly developed system that guides development, metabolism, growth, reproduction. If it works, why not use it on various species?

The thing is, many of the philosophical proofs (and I think that's what you're really leaning on here) can use the same empiric data to argue either for or against evolution, depending upon the presuppositions one begins with and how one builds the argument.

I don't wish to insult you by pointing out that the argument can't stand. If you really wish to examine whether this is true, try to honestly take the opposite opinion in your mind and try to prove it. If you can do this well enough and with intellectual honesty, you will see that such arguments can neither prove nor disprove either approach.