Is Evolution A Lie?

[welshman]

God of course.
I wasn't questioning the authority of the Bible. I believe it is inerrant

Written by men, yes; but who was it's author?

 

[Matariki]

Is evolution a lie?

Short answer: No. Not scientifically. Although it depends your chosen interpretation of scripture. And yes, you can be a Christian and believe in evolution, its called Theistic Evolution or Evolution Creationism.
Theistic Evolution is still a pretty underground interpretation of the genesis account. Theistic Evolution - Faith and Science are Compatible http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theistic_evolutionhttp://www.theisticevolution.org/

 

[non-religious]

[Matariki;]And yes, you can be a Christian and believe in evolution, its called Theistic Evolution or Evolution Creationism.

Yep, there are a number of us here, but some have a hard time equating God's creation by way of evolution.. I don't

 

[SithDoughnut]

I find it odd that people can consider themselves followers of God and then deny parts of his work because it doesn't fit with how they interpret a book. Surely you get a better idea of God's creation if you actually look at it, instead of reading a book about it?

But then, that's just the point of view of a swine. After all, it's the creationists who claim to have all the pearls.

 

[ianb321red]

Upon reflection I have to say that forum threads like this particular one are extremely unhelpful to uniting the common goals of Christians.

Why are we discussing things that are dividing us? Christians need to be united on the common ground that we agree, not splitting hairs on differing interpretations of scripture.

We all agree that God is the creator behind ALL life. We have an account of this in Genesis. End of conversation....
Of what use is it to any Christian to take this discussion any futher?

Why Christians spend hours trawling through scientific books and attempting to reconcile science with theology is beyond me...

But what bothers me more is the subsequent attitude that those "in the know" about evolution have towards the less knowledgeable amongst us..

As it says in 2 Tim 2:23 "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." Is that clear enough?

 

[non-religious]

I have no issue or take no offense at anyone who takes a literal view of scripture. I would include those who hold the Word of God as inerrant. In fact, other than this particular thread, I don't really pay much attention to the science behind evolution or the creation account. As a Christian it has never been a question that has kept me awake at night. And equally, it is not an issue that I believe will have any eternal consequences, either way. I don't spend my time going around trying to convince people my view is more weighty or evidence based. You can't argue with someone who holds a literal view of scripture because, for them, ultimately the Word is effectively their final authority. There are many more issues, especially in the O.T. that I find both far more intriguing and troublesome than the account in Genesis.

I can apply 2Tim 2:23 just as effectively to my way of thinking or view of scripture as you. I don't have the answers, the Bible contains many answers, but obviously not all the answers. So, for me, this is not divisive, it is merely a matter of differing opinions relating to how the universe and subsequently mankind came into being.

 

[Celtic D]

Yep, there are a number of us here, but some have a hard time equating God's creation by way of evolution.. I don't

Me either

 

[Celtic D]

I find it odd that people can consider themselves followers of God and then deny parts of his work because it doesn't fit with how they interpret a book. Surely you get a better idea of God's creation if you actually look at it, instead of reading a book about it?

But then, that's just the point of view of a swine. After all, it's the creationists who claim to have all the pearls.

We (TEs) are not denying what God says, we just don't take it as a literal stastement of fact, it is however still God's Word

 

[SithDoughnut]

We (TEs) are not denying what God says, we just don't take it as a literal stastement of fact, it is however still God's Word

Oh, I know, I never debated that point. I just find that Creationists seem to think that evolution presents a problem to which there are only two solutions: either science is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. At no point do they seem to consider the third option: that they are wrong.

It's for this reason that I think I admire theistic evolutionists over Creationists, because you've taken the third option into account. I may disagree with you on the fundamental premise of God, but other than that your worldview seems perfectly rational and logical to me, or at least as rational and logical as most worldviews. When I was a Christian, I didn't understand how you could think that evolution poses a problem when it comes to equating it with the Bible. If evolution is real, and God's word describes reality, then surely the only logical conclusion is that God's word describes evolution?

 

[Celtic D]

Upon reflection I have to say that forum threads like this particular one are extremely unhelpful to uniting the common goals of Christians.

Why are we discussing things that are dividing us? Christians need to be united on the common ground that we agree, not splitting hairs on differing interpretations of scripture.

We all agree that God is the creator behind ALL life. We have an account of this in Genesis. End of conversation....
Of what use is it to any Christian to take this discussion any futher?

Why Christians spend hours trawling through scientific books and attempting to reconcile science with theology is beyond me...

But what bothers me more is the subsequent attitude that those "in the know" about evolution have towards the less knowledgeable amongst us..

As it says in 2 Tim 2:23 "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." Is that clear enough?

Nobody is twisting your arm to participate in these threads, though I fear your attitude stems from the fact that you have been unable to change anyone's mind on the subject.

As for dividing people, my closest Christian friend is way more fundie than you Ian, creationism, the works, but the important things unite us more than the incidentals divide us.

That's just it, the account in Genesis is not the end of the discussion for most Christians. Most Christians subscribe to Theistic Evolution.

I don't spend hours trawling through books and I doubt very much if other TE's do either. If you don't have the knowledge then don't pretend that you do and you shouldn't be trying to "baffle" folk with made up "facts" like you did earlier in the thread - people with even very basic scientific knowledge see straight though it and it paints a very bad picture of Christianity to them.

If you haven't got the knowledge go and obtain the knowledge - from that nameless friend you mention, there is nothing special about retired professors mind you, there were many in the church I used to attend. Perhaps you are frightened what you might learn

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

 

[Celtic D]

Oh, I know, I never debated that point. I just find that Creationists seem to think that evolution presents a problem to which there are only two solutions: either science is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. At no point do they seem to consider the third option: that they are wrong.

It's for this reason that I think I admire theistic evolutionists over Creationists, because you've taken the third option into account. I may disagree with you on the fundamental premise of God, but other than that your worldview seems perfectly rational and logical to me, or at least as rational and logical as most worldviews. When I was a Christian, I didn't understand how you could think that evolution poses a problem when it comes to equating it with the Bible. If evolution is real, and God's word describes reality, then surely the only logical conclusion is that God's word describes evolution?

Two questions for you if I may

1. Who/what started the evolutionary process?

2. How/why did you loose your faith?

 

[SithDoughnut]

1. Who/what started the evolutionary process?

It wasn't really started, it's just the natural result of the way DNA works. If you mean what was the origin of life, then probably natural processes. I know some of the processes that would naturally create elements of life have been re-created, but I don't know the details. It seems intuitive to separate life from other processes, but it's basically chemistry.

2. How/why did you loose your faith?

It was when I was still in school. Basically, I just realised that I had jumped to a conclusion without any reason to do so. I didn't particuarly like the idea of not being a Christian, because I didn't know where to go, but then I realised that I didn't actually have to go anywhere. At that point, my interests ended up elsewhere, so I'm not sure how I made it from vague agnostic to where I am now.

 

[Celtic D]

It wasn't really started, it's just the natural result of the way DNA works. If you mean what was the origin of life, then probably natural processes. I know some of the processes that would naturally create elements of life have been re-created, but I don't know the details. It seems intuitive to separate life from other processes, but it's basically chemistry.

What initiated the first chemical reaction?

It was when I was still in school. Basically, I just realised that I had jumped to a conclusion without any reason to do so. I didn't particuarly like the idea of not being a Christian, because I didn't know where to go, but then I realised that I didn't actually have to go anywhere. At that point, my interests ended up elsewhere, so I'm not sure how I made it from vague agnostic to where I am now.

So don't you think you have jumped from one conclusion to another conclusion without giving it much thought? What conclusions did you jump to?

 

[SithDoughnut]

What initiated the first chemical reaction?

The first chemical reaction ever? Nothing initiated it, as such. It was the natural result of the properties of the chemicals. At least, that's the case as far as I know.

So don't you think you have jumped from one conclusion to another conclusion without giving it much thought? What conclusions did you jump to?

I didn't jump to anything. I went from "God exists" to "I have no idea whatsoever, let's take a step back and have another look", at which point I concluded that I wasn't going to be able to reach a conclusion. I also lost interest somewhat, so I suppose my final conclusion at that point was "meh".

 

[Celtic D]

The first chemical reaction ever? Nothing initiated it, as such. It was the natural result of the properties of the chemicals. At least, that's the case as far as I know.

I'm sure I don't need to give you a basic chemistry lesson, do I?

Chemicals don't react with each other unless they are "pushed" for want of a better word LOL. Something had to push the balance of equilibrium, what was that something?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Chemicals don't react with each other unless they are "pushed" for want of a better word LOL. Something had to push the balance of equilibrium, what was that something?

If we're going to go all the way back to the start (sort of), then basically gravity. The first "major" (as in not sub-atomic or something-that-I-don't-understand-in-the-slightest ) reactions were the formation of stars. That was, I suppose, the first "push". There has never actually been total equilibrium; chemical reactions have been constantly happening since the Big Bang. From what I understand, life didn't just come from a spontaneous start of chemical reactions, it's just part of a continuous set of processes.

 

[TalkaboutScience]

Short answer: No. Not scientifically. Although it depends your chosen interpretation of scripture. And yes, you can be a Christian and believe in evolution, its called Theistic Evolution or Evolution Creationism.
Theistic Evolution is still a pretty underground interpretation of the genesis account. Theistic Evolution - Faith and Science are Compatible Theistic Evolution - Perspectives

It also should be pointed out that there are hundreds of different theories of evolution, not just Darwinism, and there are hundreds of proposed mechanisms.

Most creationists have never explored any of them, and they think evolution is only Darwin's idea we sprung from an apelike being. And neo-Darwinists are just as bad, they dismiss or never explore the other evolution theories.

 

[Celtic D]

If we're going to go all the way back to the start (sort of), then basically gravity. The first "major" (as in not sub-atomic or something-that-I-don't-understand-in-the-slightest ) reactions were the formation of stars. That was, I suppose, the first "push". There has never actually been total equilibrium; chemical reactions have been constantly happening since the Big Bang. From what I understand, life didn't just come from a spontaneous start of chemical reactions, it's just part of a continuous set of processes.

So what started the "Big Bang" or the first process or what ever we want to call it?

Where did the chemicals come from?

 

[TalkaboutScience]

The first chemical reaction ever? Nothing initiated it, as such. It was the natural result of the properties of the chemicals. At least, that's the case as far as I know.

That's a pure statement of your faith/religion.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So what started the "Big Bang" or the first process or what ever we want to call it?

Where did the chemicals come from?

You know, we really could have just skipped straight to this question .

The answer is I don't know. It's quite possible that there was no cause, as cause and effect requires time to happen in, and time only came after the Big Bang. I remember a paper once that concluded that "pure nothing" was actual incredibly unstable, and could spontaneously cause anything. Or perhaps it's completely the opposite, and this universe is part of an infinite cycle, each causing the next.

A better question would be "why did the Big Bang happen?", because "what caused the Big Bang?" implies that there was a cause, and we don't actually know if that is true or not. The laws of physics cannot really be applied to a "time" when they didn't exist.

And before we go any further, yes God is a possibility. But then we must ask, what caused God? And if God can just exist without cause, there's no reason why the universe can't either.