If there was proved to be wrong...

[Eluzai]

Ok for some people their imaginations will have to work harder than others but:
do you think if there was no such thing as evolution or the big bang or they were shown scientifically to be wrong that more people would believe in God?

Because although its not true many people still believe science has disproved God through Big Bang and Evolution. Surely if evolution and the big bang were shown to be false (however unlikely that maybe) there would be nothing for atheists to stand on and evangelism would be much easier and more and more people would come into the Kingdom?

I'd just like to know people's thoughts.

 

[Vance]

But the Enlightenment, with its "rationalism" and its basic turn to atheism took place before evolution or the big bang, so obviously they thought they had something to stand on.

What has made the biggest impact is not the teaching of evolution, but the anti-evolution movement which started in the 1920's and then revived in full force again in the 1970's. It is their teaching that evolution is contrary to Scripture and contrary to Christian teaching that has had the most detrimental impact on Christianity.

Basically, if you had two possible timelines, one in which evolution never was presented, and one in which it was presented, but there had been no anti-evolution movement, I am positive that what you would find is that the latter timeline was dramatically better for Christianity, and there would be more souls in the Kingdom.

 

[herev]

I think there might be more Christians if the Big Bang were proved to be false--In this scenario, people would never hear that they were going against the Bible if they accepted a scientific theory

 

[Eluzai]

That's an interesting take on it But rationalism was more of an intelectual qwerk than a main stream normal persons idea. Where as evolution is believed by virtually everyone these days the normal person in particular.

Also people are always saying, 'hasn't science disproved God?' The humanist philosophy is what drives alot of evolutionary science, by attacking the validaty of Genesis it attacks the validity of the whole. (Obviously there are people who believe evolution supports Genesis and Biblical validity, but that's not mainstream).

Evolution is used dogmatically to push the so called truth (whether right or wrong) that we decended from apes. This is backed up by 'science' and then anyone who doesn't believe this is ignorant and stupid. For someone who has grown up with this philosophy (as most of us have) that you are stupid not to believe in evolution, when they pick up and read the first part of the Bible they either conciously or subconciously recognise that the writers of the Bible and the people who believe it to be true are stupid. This arrogance turns people away (that subtle sin) from the Bible because the begining of the Bible is wrong and stupid and anyone who has had any education (indoctrination) knows that evolution is sacrosanct.

Without even one YEC ever talking to them they turn away, because of the fact that someone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid and if God wrote the Bible he is stupid.

Just a thought.

 

[gluadys]

That's an interesting take on it But rationalism was more of an intelectual qwerk than a main stream normal persons idea. Where as evolution is believed by virtually everyone these days the normal person in particular.

Also people are always saying, 'hasn't science disproved God?' The humanist philosophy is what drives alot of evolutionary science, by attacking the validaty of Genesis it attacks the validity of the whole. (Obviously there are people who believe evolution supports Genesis and Biblical validity, but that's not mainstream).

But most people don't say that because atheists say it. There aren't that many atheists around and they are not that well organized.

Most people have got that idea from listening to Christians who have said that science disagrees with the bible. Then, when they study science and find it makes sense, they assume the bible is wrong because it disagrees with science.

The position Christians should be taking is not that science is at odds with the bible, but that science simply can't disprove God. Evolution does not disprove God. Big Bang does not disprove God. No more than gravity disproves God.

Christians who push the "science is anti-biblical" line are shooting themselves in the foot.

For someone who has grown up with this philosophy (as most of us have) that you are stupid not to believe in evolution, when they pick up and read the first part of the Bible they either conciously or subconciously recognise that the writers of the Bible and the people who believe it to be true are stupid.

I think most people recognize that the authors of scripture had limited scientific knowledge and that doesn't make them stupid. It just makes them people of their time. There is still a lot of wisdom packed into those early chapters of Genesis. Getting caught up in a battle over whether it is literal or not really takes attention away from the truths these stories were intended to teach.

 

[Vance]

Eluzai,

First of all, that humanism you mention was, indeed, began in the Enlightenment, and most of our founding fathers were secular humanists with only very tenuous ideas of God (Providence). This was not just a fad, it was the growing development which would have continued. So, I don't see evolution as ANY type of decisive factor in all of this. No more than the discovery that the earth was very old (discovered before evolution, but which also challenged literal interpretations) and the geocentrism debate. Do you think we would have more Christians today if Galileo would never have pushed Copernican heliocentrism, causing people to doubt their literal reading of Scripture?

No, even when we realize our literal interpretions are wrong, and adjust accordingly, Christianity goes on, and people still trust the Scripture. It is only when the literalists hang on to their literal, but falsified, interpretation, and push it is the true interpretation in the face of the evidence that problems develop.

Second, you mention that in today's culture, evolution is perceived to contradict Christian teaching. Again, I say that this indoctrination is (at least) a two-way street. While there were, indeed, some atheists along the way who pushed evolution as a "proof" against God, this concept was not a built-in, automatic result. It was just one angle on it, and one which the conservative, fundamentalist Christians latched on to and fought against. This idea that Scripture is contrary to evolution is NOT inherent in the two relative positions. It is an idea that was generated by this push and pull between the militant atheists and the strict fundamentalists. Were it not for these two groups using evolutionary like a politcal/social football, we would not have the problem we do today.

I am just finishing up a lecture series on the history of the theory of evolution, which covers this very "back and forth" process which resulted in the dichotomy we see today. I will prepare a summary post on the whole process when I am done. In the meantime, this thread covers it a bit:

http://www.christianforums.com/t788301-yecs-and-atheists-strange-bedfellows.html

 

[MLML]

If those theories were not around, something would be created to replace them, because man enjoy's being rebellious against God.

Even today in the Church itself, people will actively preach against doctrine giving away to myths. Some here have taught the church fathers read the Bible (Genesis) allegorically. But if one actually went and read their actual writings, they would learn the church fathers understood Genesis and the rest of the Bible to be a historical narrative. They read the Bible both ways.

Here in this forum the allegoricalists say if you read the Bible literally that is the only way you can read it, that you fall into error if you read a passage allegorically. Wrong.

The Church fathers first read the Bible as a historical narrative, understanding the main idea of what is taking place. Then they would read the Bible allegorically to find Jesus Christ and what He is saying.

Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dinoysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Methodius, Arnobius.

Those are a few fathers who believed in a historical Genesis. Augustine also believed a historically accurate Genesis and read it allegorically as well to find Christ. The Ante-Nicene, Nicene, Post-Nicene fathers shared these views, the views passed down from the Apostles who attained them from Christ.

I have spent a lot of time reading these Church Fathers writings and they are well worth everyones read. It is important because it tells how to read the Bible, which dates back to Christ and His teachings to the Apostles on the subject.

 

[Vance]

Shall I provide a list of early Church Fathers who did not read it literally as historical narrative? I never said every Church Father believed this, only that it was a common intepretation from the earliest days right up to the present. In fact, strict literalism didn't become even a major form of interpretation until the Protestant Reformation.

And, no, you are wrong on St. Augustine. He believed that the six days were wholly and entirely figurative, a literary style. He believed God created everything instantaneously, and created within that creation "seeds" of potential that would, as time goes by, arise and come into being.

 

[MLML]

Shall I provide a list of early Church Fathers who did not read it literally as historical narrative? I never said every Church Father believed this, only that it was a common intepretation from the earliest days right up to the present. In fact, strict literalism didn't become even a major form of interpretation until the Protestant Reformation.

And, no, you are wrong on St. Augustine. He believed that the six days were wholly and entirely figurative, a literary style. He believed God created everything instantaneously, and created within that creation "seeds" of potential that would, as time goes by, arise and come into being.

Augustine said in his book 'The Literal meaning of Genesis:'


Looking at Augustine's own words, taken from his Genesis commentary, we read, "In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."

Again, Augustine didn't see support for a billion year creation, as you claim. And he did see Genesis being taking literally on the accounts of six days, as his own words state above.

Greek fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, defended six-day creation. I suggest you read the early church fathers, because most all of them supported a six day creation. These fathers go back to a bit earlier then 100 a.d.

Even Origen who read the Bible allegorically believed as Augustine did about creation, both six days and immediate creation were true.

Irenaeus believed anything contrary to the what is clearly written in Genesis, as historical account, is heresy.

You ought to read what the Fathers say on the global flood. If you want to read and understand as the Apostles did, the Church Fathers were the one who tried to keep this intact. The earlier writings are really a good read.

And if you want me to cite more I can post a 27 page paper citing all of the Church Fathers and their beliefs concerning creation. All from the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

 

[Vance]

Did you read that the text? Augustine says that the only reason God told the story in the form is six days is for those who would not be able to accept the idea tha God created it all instantaneously. He did NOT believe that God created over six literal, 24-hour days. He says that they are both "true" for the same reason that TE's say the Genesis accout is true. The six days are true in that they convey exactly what God meant to convey in the manner He meant to convey it: He was speaking figuratively, and we should read it as such, so the text does not speak falsely.

And, yes, I have read all the Church Fathers in great detail. What you fail to acknowledge, that I have acknowledged all along, is that this literal/figurative dichotomy of interpretation has been in the Church from the very beginning. I just finished up a lecture series on the history of science, which covered a great deal of these debates within the Church. The simple fact is that strict literalism was not a common method of interpretation among the clergy until the Reformation (and thus contributing to the geocentrism debacle). More particularly, it has become "all the rage" within Christianity just in the last 100 years or so with the rise of the Fundamentalist movement.

 

[herev]

If those theories were not around, something would be created to replace them, because man enjoy's being rebellious against God.

so those who adhere to the theory of evolution as a means of God's development of man are being rebellious against God?
Well, that's a different was to word the same ole insults that we hear way too often

 

[MLML]

so those who adhere to the theory of evolution as a means of God's development of man are being rebellious against God?
Well, that's a different was to word the same ole insults that we hear way too often

So the Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, and the Evolutionary theory are all theories where modern day scientists are all giving God the credit? I was really unware that all these scientists were God believers.

My statement wasn't intended as an insult. I believe everyone, including Christians are rebellious against God. Maybe you think differently and disagree with the fact that we continue to sin, and our flesh hates God.

 

[Eluzai]

MLML thanks so much for quoting an original text, its something we should see more often

You've made some interesting points I just wish I'd had as much time to read up on the Church fathers as you have. I've got Confessions by Augustine, so maybe I'll get stuck into that soon.

I do very much agree with you that evolution has mainly come around due to atheistic science in a rebelious attitude, rather than Christians like Issac Newton genuninely investigatin God's creation.

 

[leigh01]

if the big bang theory was proved to be wrong then i believe there would be more christians

 

[Eluzai]

But most people don't say that because atheists say it. There aren't that many atheists around and they are not that well organized.

Things must be different in Canada! In the UK Blindwatch Maker guy - Richard Dawkins is more evangelical than the whole Church of England put together, he's on TV alot, writing LOADS of books which always seem to be best sellers. Channel 4 (we have 5 main channels) is very anti-christian with many 'Who was Jesus really?' and 'The Moses Fake' rubbish like that all the time. There are countless anti-christian articles in the newspapers weekly. Philip Pullman (the most famous at the moment childrens auther in the world - Dark Materials) was on TV the other night talking about when he began to read more widely in his teen age years he begain to realise the historical falsity of Christianity and its blaitant untruth. Pullman also agresively attacks CS Lewis and Tolkien because of their Christian beliefs. The top four most inteligent people in the UK are supposedly atheists. There are constant media attacks on the church for standing against abortion or gay adoption. Many even liberal Christians are labeled in the media as Fundamentalists or religious extremists. There was a program on TV not long ago which talked about disturbing religious Fundamentalism and compared the extreme religious terrorism of 9-11 to the extreme religious fundamentalism of Bible belt Christianity. Also the program talked about the similarities between Militant Islamic beliefs that the world is inherently evil and only Allah and his chosen people are good, and the Christian belief that the world is sinful and the god of this world is satan. The program didn't say openly demonise Christianity in the way that it did Islam, but the atheist 'religion is dangerous' slant was terrifying.

Atheism in the UK is as organised as the christianity, is more evangelical and gets 90% more media coverage. Even the fact that Bush says he's a Christian is used in the media here to attack Christianity. But we're not as atheistic as France

Getting caught up in a battle over whether it is literal or not really takes attention away from the truths these stories were intended to teach.

Very true

 

[MLML]

MLML thanks so much for quoting an original text, its something we should see more often

You've made some interesting points I just wish I'd had as much time to read up on the Church fathers as you have. I've got Confessions by Augustine, so maybe I'll get stuck into that soon.

I do very much agree with you that evolution has mainly come around due to atheistic science in a rebelious attitude, rather than Christians like Issac Newton genuninely investigatin God's creation.

Many te-ist think yec-ist are dumb, unintelligent, or scientifically challenged. I wonder what they think of Isaac Newton, after all he believed in a six day creation. What about Charles Spurgeon, another six day creation believer.

Interesting fact about Isaac Newton, other than gravity, he used to go to the London alley's and preach the Gospel using Spurgeon's sermons.

 

[Vance]

While I think there are many, many highly intelligent YEC's, the ones you cite are not good examples. They lived before the geologists (Christian geologists) realized how old the earth was and that flood could not have happened.

But, since the discovery of so much of how God's Creation works, and its past, there is a distinct connection between degree of education (not intelligence, mind you) and acceptance of the scientific evidence. Among those with only high school education, Creationism is strongest. Among college graduates, acceptance of evolution is the overwhelming majority.

Again, this has nothing to do with intelligence, but simply exposure to the real evidence. This will not convince everyone, since many have so much confidence in their human interpretation of Scripture, that they refuse to accept any evidence which contradicts it. But, very simply, among those who have been exposed to the real and complete evidence, the vast majority accept that evidence as convincing. Among those who have not been exposed to the real and complete evidence, there is less acceptance. Not surprising, really.

Very often YEC's will point to legitimate scientists who reject Darwinism, and yes, there are some. But they fail to point out (maybe because they do not know) that most of the ones they are citing still accept the fact of evolutionary development over billions of years, even for humans, and often from a common ancestor. What these scientists are doing is simply rejecting the Darwinian mechanism for such development because it is based on naturalistic processes, and they don't think this will work. They think God had to direct the process along.

These ID scientists will also, when confronted with a question about YEC'ism, say that it is "silly" as Johnson put it, and Denton was not much more complimentary.

 

[MLML]

What you call confidence, we call faith. You choose science to lead you in how you are suppose to read the scriptures, and I choose the church fathers. YOu like the new, I prefer the old.

Too bad the Apostles didn't have the geologists then so they could it get right, all they had was Jesus Christ.

 

[gluadys]

Things must be different in Canada! In the UK Blindwatch Maker guy - Richard Dawkins is more evangelical than the whole Church of England put together, he's on TV alot, writing LOADS of books which always seem to be best sellers. Channel 4 (we have 5 main channels) is very anti-christian with many 'Who was Jesus really?' and 'The Moses Fake' rubbish like that all the time. There are countless anti-christian articles in the newspapers weekly. Philip Pullman (the most famous at the moment childrens auther in the world - Dark Materials) was on TV the other night talking about when he began to read more widely in his teen age years he begain to realise the historical falsity of Christianity and its blaitant untruth. Pullman also agresively attacks CS Lewis and Tolkien because of their Christian beliefs. The top four most inteligent people in the UK are supposedly atheists. There are constant media attacks on the church for standing against abortion or gay adoption. Many even liberal Christians are labeled in the media as Fundamentalists or religious extremists. There was a program on TV not long ago which talked about disturbing religious Fundamentalism and compared the extreme religious terrorism of 9-11 to the extreme religious fundamentalism of Bible belt Christianity. Also the program talked about the similarities between Militant Islamic beliefs that the world is inherently evil and only Allah and his chosen people are good, and the Christian belief that the world is sinful and the god of this world is satan. The program didn't say openly demonise Christianity in the way that it did Islam, but the atheist 'religion is dangerous' slant was terrifying.

Atheism in the UK is as organised as the christianity, is more evangelical and gets 90% more media coverage. Even the fact that Bush says he's a Christian is used in the media here to attack Christianity. But we're not as atheistic as France

You're right. We have mostly American programs here and some homegrown ones--especially news and sports. You would hardly know from the media that atheists existed.

OTOH, I do think extreme American Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as extreme Muslim fundamentalists. Or Hindu or any other fundamentalists. They all kill people for a "good" cause.

I've just read the Pullman Dark Materials trilogy. Good stories, but they do rip apart a strawman version of Judeo-Christian teaching. Next to them Harry Potter is Sunday school material.

Frankly, I would read Dark Materials to/with Christian children. Not to attack the author or the books, but to analyse what he got right (e.g. the tyranny of the medieval church) and what he got wrong. And why---when the church/Christians do act like their portrayal in Dark Materials--it is an even worse blasphemy than Pullman's.

With high schoolers, I could see so many spin-offs that would help them mature spiritually as they learned to separate false versions of Christianity such as Pullman depicts from true biblical Christianity.

 

[California Tim]

OTOH, I do think extreme American Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as extreme Muslim fundamentalists. Or Hindu or any other fundamentalists. They all kill people for a "good" cause.

Very little, and I sincerely mean very little gets my dander up like this kind of misrepresentation - especially by a brother or sister in Christ. Firstly, before I go making a fool of myself, perhaps you could share some examples of "fundie christians" out killing for a "good cause" and in support of written directive found in the Gospel.