Is Darwin the Devil?

[2ndRateMind]

It seems I must be a little more subtle in my approach.

Firstly, this thread is not about Darwin, despite the title. Nor is it about whether the Theory of Evolution is true. There are other forums on this board to discuss these matters.

It is about the impact and implications of Darwinism for Christianity.

I would like to solicit your opinions. It seems we have three options, at the very least:

1. Should Christianity deny evolution, and attack it's proponents, as the fundamentalist believers do?

2. Should Christianity accept evolution, and then pretend it has no important implications for Christian doctrine, as the Catholics do?

3. Should Christianity accept evolution, and accept that it has major consequences for doctrine, particularly the doctrines of original sin and of atonement by crucifixion, and radically uphaul it's thinking on these matters? I don't think any church has gone down this route, yet.

I am interested in your views, which is why I post here. But I am interested even more in why you hold these views, and what you think the consequences of the three strategies I have outlined above might be.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[wayseer]

Next you'll be saying mathematics is of the Devil.

And, what is Darwinism? Some new religion?

I have asked this of you previously but I note you avoid suggesting an answer.

 

[NaLuvena]

It seems I must be a little more subtle in my approach.

Firstly, this thread is not about Darwin, despite the title. Nor is it about whether the Theory of Evolution is true. There are other forums on this board to discuss these matters.

It is about the impact and implications of Darwinism for Christianity.

I would like to solicit your opinions. It seems we have three options, at the very least:

1. Should Christianity deny evolution, and attack it's proponents, as the fundamentalist believers do?

2. Should Christianity accept evolution, and then pretend it has no important implications for Christian doctrine, as the Catholics do?

3. Should Christianity accept evolution, and accept that it has major consequences for doctrine, particularly the doctrines of original sin and of atonement by crucifixion, and radically uphaul it's thinking on these matters? I don't think any church has gone down this route, yet.

I am interested in your views, which is why I post here. But I am interested even more in why you hold these views, and what you think the consequences of the three strategies I have outlined above might be.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Hi 2ndRateMind,

I think you have asked a very good question, regarding the truth.

To answer the one in the OP, I think we should take the 4th option, the one that you don't seem to have included.

Christianity (technically the christian) must prove for itself whether Darwin is right or not. How? Like the Bereans did, by comparing what Darwin said to the standard God gave us for the truth.

In a wider sense, the truth always reveals itself to us, if we choose to look for it, and are ready to receive it. The truth is always from God, just like lies are always from the Devil. The Spirit of God Himself is called the Spirit of Truth.

We must not attack the proponents of such a view, because when the truth is spoken in love, there will be no argument against it.

 

[chingchang]

I would like to solicit your opinions. It seems we have three options, at the very least:

1. Should Christianity deny evolution, and attack it's proponents, as the fundamentalist believers do?

No...it is a waste of time and energy IMHO.

2. Should Christianity accept evolution, and then pretend it has no important implications for Christian doctrine, as the Catholics do?

No. Yeshua had much to say about hypocrisy.

3. Should Christianity accept evolution, and accept that it has major consequences for doctrine, particularly the doctrines of original sin and of atonement by crucifixion, and radically uphaul it's thinking on these matters? I don't think any church has gone down this route, yet.

No. I personally believe (Ms. Teen South Carolina flashback) that we can't really know exactly how it all went down. We're missing information that would complete the picture and link everything together. For now it is a mystery...and there are MANY theories out there. I used to care about this stuff...and I must say that I'm still interested...but I no longer focus on it. Do I really need to know? Does it really matter? Perhaps it does for those who need to be engaged intellectually to come to faith in Yeshua. However...that isn't how the Most High operates. What I have chosen to foucs on instead are the teachings of Yeshua and living in the Spirit. I'm preparing myself for things to come. If you figure it all out...let me know.

CC

 

[shinbits]

christians should accept that the scientific validity of evolution is quite substantial, but remember that faith needs no explanation; otherwise, it wouldn't be faith.

 

[Inviolable]

It seems I must be a little more subtle in my approach.

Firstly, this thread is not about Darwin, despite the title. Nor is it about whether the Theory of Evolution is true. There are other forums on this board to discuss these matters.

It is about the impact and implications of Darwinism for Christianity.

I would like to solicit your opinions. It seems we have three options, at the very least:

I seen an educated fundamentalist and a physicist go toe to toe in a debate over the big bang. Neither one got any where.

The problem with evolution isn't that it teaches something different then the bible. If one wanted to they could probably some how make evolution something that fits perfectly with the bible, or vice versa.
Which some people have.
The problem with evolution is that most atheist make it out to be something that explains why religion isn't needed.
It's your one stop shop for evidence against the almighty or it seems as if it's treated that way.
A lot of the research from evolution has helped society in general.
It's actually helped to improve medical science quite a bit.
Which should be the main thing people get out of it but they don't.
So the negative thoughts people have is a mind set that's based on a persons inner bias. Which goes both ways.
If atheist would stop using it to through in the face of religion everytime they wanted to make some counter point against religion, religious people wouldn't want to turn away from it.
Evolution in and of itself has the same fundamental building blocks that
brings about a religion. People use it as ground work for a belief system that they have no idea they have faith in, because the scientific method doesn't require faith to work. However the method itself is being used as a source of security to answer questions that don't seem answerable in this lifetime. Which brings about a personal faith that people don't have to work at because the system has never failed. An invisible form of bias.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

Christians should accept: a very old universe and evolution, as that is what the evidence points to. This does not mean there is not a creator.

Religion which is the study of God has also evolved. Look at the Bible - the evolution is remarkably obvious. From Noah, to the revelation on Mount Sinai, to the message of the prophets, to the teachings of Jesus, to the teachings of Paul. I cannot see any reason that relgion will stop evolving.

Our current knowledge and future knowledge about the universe may pose the next stage of evolution of religion. How this will happen i do not know.

For me the thought of God creating humans over the course of billions of years is more epic and beautiful.

 

[marktheblake]

1. Should Christianity deny evolution, and attack it's proponents, as the fundamentalist believers do?

No, but Christianity should defend itself against it's opponents.

I don't mind if Individuals (or small groups) pursue any line of apologetics as they like, eg anti-evolution, but as a whole Christianity should be more resolved to strengthen our own belief.

IMHO the side that criticises the loudest is the one that is more afraid that they are standing on the weakest ground.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

but remember that faith needs no explanation; otherwise, it wouldn't be faith.

I base my faith on reasoning the evidence.

I do not understand what you think faith is. Do you have blind faith?

 

[david_x]

Next you'll be saying mathematics is of the Devil.

And, what is Darwinism? Some new religion?

I have asked this of you previously but I note you avoid suggesting an answer.

Google it.

 

[david_x]

It seems I must be a little more subtle in my approach.

Firstly, this thread is not about Darwin, despite the title. Nor is it about whether the Theory of Evolution is true. There are other forums on this board to discuss these matters.

It is about the impact and implications of Darwinism for Christianity.

I would like to solicit your opinions. It seems we have three options, at the very least:

1. Should Christianity deny evolution, and attack it's proponents, as the fundamentalist believers do?

2. Should Christianity accept evolution, and then pretend it has no important implications for Christian doctrine, as the Catholics do?

3. Should Christianity accept evolution, and accept that it has major consequences for doctrine, particularly the doctrines of original sin and of atonement by crucifixion, and radically uphaul it's thinking on these matters? I don't think any church has gone down this route, yet.

I am interested in your views, which is why I post here. But I am interested even more in why you hold these views, and what you think the consequences of the three strategies I have outlined above might be.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Christians should stop trying to legislate it and accept it because it has no important implications for Christian dogma and doctrine.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Christians should stop trying to legislate it and accept it because it has no important implications for Christian dogma and doctrine.

Hi David-x.

Thankyou for your kind reply. Do you really think that the theory of evolution has no implications for Christian doctrine? The fundamentalists don't; they perceive an attack at Christianity's very core, and I think they are right in this matter, even while being wrong about everything else.

Consider; if humanity evolved, like chimpanzees and gorillas and monkeys, from distant primate forbears, then the story of God creating Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, is simply wrong. Along with that wrongness goes the idea of a Garden of Eden, a tree of knowledge, a forbidden fruit, and a speaking serpent. Now, you may respond that you don't believe in these things, anyway, and that no Christian is bound to believe them by any creed of any church. But the thing that rests on them is the idea of original sin, and the idea that rests on that is the notion of Christ's atonement, on the cross, for that original sin. And these are core beliefs. And they are called into question, I think, by the theory of evolution.

Or perhaps you can resolve this matter for me?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[2ndRateMind]

No...it is a waste of time and energy IMHO.



No. Yeshua had much to say about hypocrisy.



No. I personally believe (Ms. Teen South Carolina flashback) that we can't really know exactly how it all went down. We're missing information that would complete the picture and link everything together. For now it is a mystery...and there are MANY theories out there. I used to care about this stuff...and I must say that I'm still interested...but I no longer focus on it. Do I really need to know? Does it really matter? Perhaps it does for those who need to be engaged intellectually to come to faith in Yeshua. However...that isn't how the Most High operates. What I have chosen to foucs on instead are the teachings of Yeshua and living in the Spirit. I'm preparing myself for things to come. If you figure it all out...let me know.

CC

Hey ChingChang

Greetings, brother.

I notice you have replied 'No' to all my options. And advocate a 4th - simply ignore the difficulties. Well, that's your prerogative. The thing that worries me though, is that (how do I say this without being seen to contravene the moderator's exhortions not to criticise Christianity!) if the doctrine is wrong, and people believe it, and their ethics are founded on that belief, then their afterlife might not meet with their expectations. I really think we need take this challenge seriously, and meet it honestly. It does really matter, if you think the truth is at all important, whichever side of the debate you incline towards.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Inviolable]

Christians should accept: a very old universe and evolution, as that is what the evidence points to. This does not mean there is not a creator.

No not actually.
There is a ton of evidence to support otherwise. There are several things in the universe that don't fit with the model of a very old universe.

 

[70x7]

Christians should accept: a very old universe and evolution, as that is what the evidence points to. This does not mean there is not a creator.

Oh really?

 

[Dark_Lite]

No not actually.
There is a ton of evidence to support otherwise.

Much of the "evidence" that creationist organizations claim is generally built on misunderstandings of scientific theories, misunderstandings of what science actually *is*, attacks on hoaxes/problems the scientific community has resolved long ago, or at some points just completely made up (though this is the far, far extreme).

There are several things in the universe that don't fit with the model of a very old universe.

Such as?

 

[shinbits]

I base my faith on reasoning the evidence.

I do not understand what you think faith is. Do you have blind faith?

I've had experiences which lead me to believe God is real. So no, my faith isn't blind.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

No not actually.
There is a ton of evidence to support otherwise. There are several things in the universe that don't fit with the model of a very old universe.

Oh really?

If you look at the evidence and hear the views then you will probably come to the conclusion that the evidence points to an old universe in which we evolved. There are alot of good books out there to read on the subject, by theists and atheists.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

I've had experiences which lead me to believe God is real. So no, my faith isn't blind.

Your faith does have an explanation then. We all base are faith on an explanation.

Faith without an explanation, is blind faith. Blind faith is a bad thing.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hey all, while I appreciate your reponses very much, I really don't want this thread to degenerate into just another 'big-bang-old-earth-evolution is true'/'No it isn't'/'Yes it is' thread.

The fact is, that whether or not the picture science gives us is accurate, it differs from the picture given us in Genesis. And that difference causes many a secular onlooker to think that Biblical literalists are really rather an odd bunch of people, and so they dismiss the whole of Christianity without giving the matter much further thought. Is that what we want?

So, if we look at the three options that I offered you in the OP, it seems to me that attacking science is the most foolish option of the three, given that science makes no statement about the existance of God, only the methods He employed to bring about the world.

Ignoring the challenge to doctrine is almost as bad, I think. It's rather disengenuous to say, on the one hand, 'the Bible is the infallible Word of God', and then on the other, 'but of course, all reasonable people believe in evolution, these days'. Which hand do you want? They are mutually exclusive. This dubious tactic does not go unnoticed, either.

Meeting the challenge head on, and admitting readily that the state of the art has moved on, and new and contradicting knowledge has been accumulated, in the 1500 years since the Bible was compiled, seems to me courageous, honest, and principled. This is what I would advocate, unless anyone has a better idea? Or are we, as the Vatican did with Galileo, going to wait 400 years before finally conceding that the Church is capable of being just, plain, wrong?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.