• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

LCMS and Evolution

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@Daniel9v9

The LCMS as well as many other Christian religions don’t believe in macroevolution, so how does one in these denominations explain the evidence such as this, below from Answers in Genesis?




<<<<<<Does an Armless Fossil Shed Light on How Animals Like Snakes Lost Their Limbs?

by Ken Ham on April 13, 2022
Featured in Ken Ham

Share:

I’ve used many words to describe evolution over the years, but I think I might have a new one which describes a recent fossil find: “disarming.” This pair of fossils (one of an adult specimen and one of a juvenile) of Nagini mazonense, a small snake-like animal (technically a molgophid recumbirostran) that supposedly lived about 308 million years ago, was discovered in the Francis Creek Shale of Illinois. The adult fossil specimen measures about 4 inches long (10 cm), and although it has reduced hind limbs, it has no pelvic girdle to support those limbs or front limbs. The more complete juvenile is around 2 inches (5 cm) long and also has no front limbs or pelvic girdle.

Now, the research journal that covered the fossil find constantly attributes this loss of genetic information as “evolution.” They point out that this fossil closely resembles how snakes and caecilians (legless amphibians) exhibit progressively reduced limbs before complete loss in their “evolutionary histories.” But today, there are living reptiles that have no arms but reduced hindlimbs (Pygopodidae—“armless” geckos and Chamaesaura—“grass lizards”). Maybe they just haven’t “evolved” enough yet!

The researchers described the proposed mechanisms behind limb loss in Nagini:

Although the mechanisms of limb reduction in many tetrapod lineages remain incompletely understood, it appears that limb reduction and loss can be accomplished by failures or disruptions to normal development during any of the three phases of limb development, resulting in a vast array of variation in limb-reduced phenotypes. Late phase disruptions to growth plate development, particularly the rate of longitudinal growth or timing of growth plate closure, are most common and typically lead to conditions where the majority of limb elements are retained but are reduced in overall size. Disruptions in limb morphogenesis and patterning during the limb bud phase will often result in loss of distinct limb modules, commonly the loss of entire digits but also the loss of other distal (but not proximal) elements, including carpals and/or tarsals. Failure in the earliest phase establishing the limb field is relatively rare but is the mechanism identified as resulting in the loss of the pectoral limb and girdle and associated musculature in caecilians and snakes and we suggest that this is the mechanism involved in forelimb loss in Nagini as well based on similarities in the pattern of limb loss (that is, complete lack of proximal appendicular elements and absence of a forelimb rudiment).
In other words, these are mutations in the developing reptile’s genes which disrupt its ability to grow limbs. (It is worth noting here that there is some debate among evolutionary biologists who differ on whether these recumbirostrans are reptiles or amphibians). This is a result of the curse (Genesis 3), not an evolutionary advancement. Or it may be that God designed these types of reptiles (or amphibians) as limbless or with reduced limbs originally (as part of the creeping things of Genesis 1:25).

Now to be sure, even in a cursed world, God allows some animals to adapt to their environment. And for burrowing or tree-dwelling animals, which many of the “legless lizards” are, not having limbs is not a detriment to their survival but may actually aid the animal.

Now to be sure, even in a cursed world, God allows some animals to adapt to their environment.
In any event, this is not molecules-to-man evolution but potentially a developmental mutation and the loss of information. Ironically, though, the researchers placed Nagini in a phylogenetic tree where both its ancestors and descendants are four-limbed recumbirostrans. How does this show an evolutionary developmental process in lizards or amphibians? It’s not just inconsistent: it’s totally disarming to their “story.”>>>>>>
 

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
@Daniel9v9

The LCMS as well as many other Christian religions don’t believe in macroevolution, so how does one in these denominations explain the evidence such as this, below from Answers in Genesis?




<<<<<<Does an Armless Fossil Shed Light on How Animals Like Snakes Lost Their Limbs?

by Ken Ham on April 13, 2022
Featured in Ken Ham

Share:

I’ve used many words to describe evolution over the years, but I think I might have a new one which describes a recent fossil find: “disarming.” This pair of fossils (one of an adult specimen and one of a juvenile) of Nagini mazonense, a small snake-like animal (technically a molgophid recumbirostran) that supposedly lived about 308 million years ago, was discovered in the Francis Creek Shale of Illinois. The adult fossil specimen measures about 4 inches long (10 cm), and although it has reduced hind limbs, it has no pelvic girdle to support those limbs or front limbs. The more complete juvenile is around 2 inches (5 cm) long and also has no front limbs or pelvic girdle.

Now, the research journal that covered the fossil find constantly attributes this loss of genetic information as “evolution.” They point out that this fossil closely resembles how snakes and caecilians (legless amphibians) exhibit progressively reduced limbs before complete loss in their “evolutionary histories.” But today, there are living reptiles that have no arms but reduced hindlimbs (Pygopodidae—“armless” geckos and Chamaesaura—“grass lizards”). Maybe they just haven’t “evolved” enough yet!

The researchers described the proposed mechanisms behind limb loss in Nagini:

Although the mechanisms of limb reduction in many tetrapod lineages remain incompletely understood, it appears that limb reduction and loss can be accomplished by failures or disruptions to normal development during any of the three phases of limb development, resulting in a vast array of variation in limb-reduced phenotypes. Late phase disruptions to growth plate development, particularly the rate of longitudinal growth or timing of growth plate closure, are most common and typically lead to conditions where the majority of limb elements are retained but are reduced in overall size. Disruptions in limb morphogenesis and patterning during the limb bud phase will often result in loss of distinct limb modules, commonly the loss of entire digits but also the loss of other distal (but not proximal) elements, including carpals and/or tarsals. Failure in the earliest phase establishing the limb field is relatively rare but is the mechanism identified as resulting in the loss of the pectoral limb and girdle and associated musculature in caecilians and snakes and we suggest that this is the mechanism involved in forelimb loss in Nagini as well based on similarities in the pattern of limb loss (that is, complete lack of proximal appendicular elements and absence of a forelimb rudiment).
In other words, these are mutations in the developing reptile’s genes which disrupt its ability to grow limbs. (It is worth noting here that there is some debate among evolutionary biologists who differ on whether these recumbirostrans are reptiles or amphibians). This is a result of the curse (Genesis 3), not an evolutionary advancement. Or it may be that God designed these types of reptiles (or amphibians) as limbless or with reduced limbs originally (as part of the creeping things of Genesis 1:25).
As a
Now to be sure, even in a cursed world, God allows some animals to adapt to their environment. And for burrowing or tree-dwelling animals, which many of the “legless lizards” are, not having limbs is not a detriment to their survival but may actually aid the animal.

Now to be sure, even in a cursed world, God allows some animals to adapt to their environment.
In any event, this is not molecules-to-man evolution but potentially a developmental mutation and the loss of information. Ironically, though, the researchers placed Nagini in a phylogenetic tree where both its ancestors and descendants are four-limbed recumbirostrans. How does this show an evolutionary developmental process in lizards or amphibians? It’s not just inconsistent: it’s totally disarming to their “story.”>>>>>>

Well, maybe it's helpful to think about this in simpler terms: Can God gradually change animals? Yes, we can know this by the example of dog-breeding. Can He change humans? Again, yes, we can know this by what we commonly call "races", although, strictly speaking, there is only one human race. Does it automatically follow then that all life essentially started out as microbes? No, because (A) that's not what God has revealed to us in history, and (B) there are too many leaps between forms that cannot have a gradual change but must be binary. For example, something going from not alive to alive, or something self-reproducing to needing a partner, are leaps that cannot be easily reconciled with a theory of gradual development. These leaps require leaps of faith (pun intended), and therefore move the discussion from science to philosophy.

In other words, I think we can simply say that we hold to microevolution but reject macroevolution, but at the same time, we recognise that these two categories bleed into each other depending on how we think about things.

What I'm interested in, though, is looking at it from a more top-level view and recognise that the theory of macroevolution is not hard science but a theory that is essentially Pantheistic, and that Pantheism is contrary to the Christian faith, which is why the theory can't be reconciled with Scriptures, though many attempt to do exactly that. But out of this syncretistic move to reconcile Pantheism with Christianity, a lot of errors flow. And those things can be harmful to our consciences and our spiritual well-being. I think we'll all do well to approach the subject of creation with humility, by letting the fact that God is almighty govern our thoughts, theories, and speculation. Simply, what God has recorded for us through His messengers is sufficient for us, and it's meant for our comfort. And even if we don't fully understand the creation account, which none of us do, we can rejoice and look forward to the day when we see our Lord face to face, and where these things will be made known to us, or at least not cause us any worry.

Blessings!
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, maybe it's helpful to think about this in simpler terms: Can God gradually change animals? Yes, we can know this by the example of dog-breeding. Can He change humans? Again, yes, we can know this by what we commonly call "races", although, strictly speaking, there is only one human race. Does it automatically follow then that all life essentially started out as microbes? No, because (A) that's not what God has revealed to us in history, and (B) there are too many leaps between forms that cannot have a gradual change but must be binary. For example, something going from not alive to alive, or something self-reproducing to needing a partner, are leaps that cannot be easily reconciled with a theory of gradual development. These leaps require leaps of faith (pun intended), and therefore move the discussion from science to philosophy.

In other words, I think we can simply say that we hold to microevolution but reject macroevolution, but at the same time, we recognise that these two categories bleed into each other depending on how we think about things.

What I'm interested in, though, is looking at it from a more top-level view and recognise that the theory of macroevolution is not hard science but a theory that is essentially Pantheistic, and that Pantheism is contrary to the Christian faith, which is why the theory can't be reconciled with Scriptures, though many attempt to do exactly that. But out of this syncretistic move to reconcile Pantheism with Christianity, a lot of errors flow. And those things can be harmful to our consciences and our spiritual well-being. I think we'll all do well to approach the subject of creation with humility, by letting the fact that God is almighty govern our thoughts, theories, and speculation. Simply, what God has recorded for us through His messengers is sufficient for us, and it's meant for our comfort. And even if we don't fully understand the creation account, which none of us do, we can rejoice and look forward to the day when we see our Lord face to face, and where these things will be made known to us, or at least not cause us any worry.

Blessings!
So what about the snakes and creatures featured in the article?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So what about the snakes and creatures featured in the article?

Well, I can't really go beyond what the Scriptures say. That we have found fossils of snakes with hindlegs simply tells us that God made some creatures like that. I do not think it can be used to prove macroevolution on one hand, nor God's curse on the serpent on the other, because, while God's judgment is true, it likely involved a different creature and it was not a slow and gradual change, but miraculous and instant.
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, maybe it's helpful to think about this in simpler terms: Can God gradually change animals? Yes, we can know this by the example of dog-breeding. Can He change humans? Again, yes, we can know this by what we commonly call "races", although, strictly speaking, there is only one human race. Does it automatically follow then that all life essentially started out as microbes? No, because (A) that's not what God has revealed to us in history, and (B) there are too many leaps between forms that cannot have a gradual change but must be binary. For example, something going from not alive to alive, or something self-reproducing to needing a partner, are leaps that cannot be easily reconciled with a theory of gradual development. These leaps require leaps of faith (pun intended), and therefore move the discussion from science to philosophy.

In other words, I think we can simply say that we hold to microevolution but reject macroevolution, but at the same time, we recognise that these two categories bleed into each other depending on how we think about things.

What I'm interested in, though, is looking at it from a more top-level view and recognise that the theory of macroevolution is not hard science but a theory that is essentially Pantheistic, and that Pantheism is contrary to the Christian faith, which is why the theory can't be reconciled with Scriptures, though many attempt to do exactly that. But out of this syncretistic move to reconcile Pantheism with Christianity, a lot of errors flow. And those things can be harmful to our consciences and our spiritual well-being. I think we'll all do well to approach the subject of creation with humility, by letting the fact that God is almighty govern our thoughts, theories, and speculation. Simply, what God has recorded for us through His messengers is sufficient for us, and it's meant for our comfort. And even if we don't fully understand the creation account, which none of us do, we can rejoice and look forward to the day when we see our Lord face to face, and where these things will be made known to us, or at least not cause us any worry.

Blessings!
Well, I can't really go beyond what the Scriptures say. That we have found fossils of snakes with hindlegs simply tells us that God made some creatures like that. I do not think it can be used to prove macroevolution on one hand, nor God's curse on the serpent on the other, because, while God's judgment is true, it likely involved a different creature and it was not a slow and gradual change, but miraculous and instant.
Scientists are convinced that creatures with these features are evidence for evolution. Besides the Bible, how can we know macroevolution hasn’t occurred?
As I’ve probably mentioned, I’m a former a Catholic and my Catholic Bible even says in the commentary at the front that man may have come from other life forms (or something like that….I don’t have that Bible with me at the moment).
Are there any websites you’d recommend I read other than Answers in Genesis?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Scientists are convinced that creatures with these features are evidence for evolution. Besides the Bible, how can we know macroevolution hasn’t occurred?
As I’ve probably mentioned, I’m a former a Catholic and my Catholic Bible even says in the commentary at the front that man may have come from other life forms (or something like that….I don’t have that Bible with me at the moment).
Are there any websites you’d recommend I read other than Answers in Genesis?

Sure, I can recommend Issues Etc which hosts a number of academics, doctors, theologians, pastors and experts from different fields and traditions. It's a Lutheran podcast with close ties to LCMS. On the topic of macroevolution, I can suggest a short series with Dr. Doyle Holbird, Professor in Biology. He's able to explain things in a way that is very clear and easy to follow.

2054. Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? Part 1 – Dr. Doyle Holbird, 7/24/19

2192. Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? Part 2 – Dr. Doyle Holbird, 8/7/19

2202. Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? Part 3 – Dr. Doyle Holbird, 8/8/19

I can also add to this that one of my favourite contemporary theologians is sometimes also featured on the same podcast. Rev. Dr. David Adams is an OT expert and has a wealth of knowledge about the ancient world. I seem to recall that in his interview on Noah, he touched on the problem with trying to date the earth by simply adding up the genealogies found in the OT, as they very likely skip generations, just as Matthew does. You can listen to it here: 2. The Patriarch Noah – Dr. David Adams, 11/27/15

Blessings!
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure, I can recommend Issues Etc which hosts a number of academics, doctors, theologians, pastors and experts from different fields and traditions. It's a Lutheran podcast with close ties to LCMS. On the topic of macroevolution, I can suggest a short series with Dr. Doyle Holbird, Professor in Biology. He's able to explain things in a way that is very clear and easy to follow.

2054. Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? Part 1 – Dr. Doyle Holbird, 7/24/19

2192. Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? Part 2 – Dr. Doyle Holbird, 8/7/19

2202. Are Creation and Evolution Compatible? Part 3 – Dr. Doyle Holbird, 8/8/19

I can also add to this that one of my favourite contemporary theologians is sometimes also featured on the same podcast. Rev. Dr. David Adams is an OT expert and has a wealth of knowledge about the ancient world. I seem to recall that in his interview on Noah, he touched on the problem with trying to date the earth by simply adding up the genealogies found in the OT, as they very likely skip generations, just as Matthew does. You can listen to it here: 2. The Patriarch Noah – Dr. David Adams, 11/27/15

Blessings!
I listened to the first podcast, or at least tried to…..one of my dogs was freaking out over horses and a porcupine in a movie I’ve got on in the background. LOL.
So far, so good. I’ll have to hear the rest.
A thing bothers me though. Maybe I misheard with my dog barking but I thought he spoke indefinitely, like he’s on the Christian side but admits the evolutionists can make some points.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I listened to the first podcast, or at least tried to…..one of my dogs was freaking out over horses and a porcupine in a movie I’ve got on in the background. LOL.
So far, so good. I’ll have to hear the rest.
A thing bothers me though. Maybe I misheard with my dog barking but I thought he spoke indefinitely, like he’s on the Christian side but admits the evolutionists can make some points.

Ah, yeah. I tend to listen to podcasts on my iPhone with AirPods and with noise cancellation turned on while doing household work. It helps me to pay attention to what they say. It's clear and easy enough to track if we just follow their train of thought, but if we're distracted, it can be easy to get lost. So I can only recommend finding a time and a place that allows you to focus and giving it a proper listen.

What Dr. Doyle is saying is essentially this: the theory of macroevolution is a belief system. So is Christianity — they are both drawn out of evidence. He's comparing the two, and makes the case why the Bible is true and why it's not compatible with macroevolution, and along the way, he points out the problems with the theory of macroevolution (mostly from a scientific and non-theological standpoint as he's a scientist and not a theologian, academically speaking). I think if you listen to his whole interview it gets clearer.

A blessed Good Friday to you!
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah, yeah. I tend to listen to podcasts on my iPhone with AirPods and with noise cancellation turned on while doing household work. It helps me to pay attention to what they say. It's clear and easy enough to track if we just follow their train of thought, but if we're distracted, it can be easy to get lost. So I can only recommend finding a time and a place that allows you to focus and giving it a proper listen.

What Dr. Doyle is saying is essentially this: the theory of macroevolution is a belief system. So is Christianity — they are both drawn out of evidence. He's comparing the two, and makes the case why the Bible is true and why it's not compatible with macroevolution, and along the way, he points out the problems with the theory of macroevolution (mostly from a scientific and non-theological standpoint as he's a scientist and not a theologian, academically speaking). I think if you listen to his whole interview it gets clearer.

A blessed Good Friday to you!
I listened to all three parts but some of it went over my head. The scientific parts. Thanks for summarizing it for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Daniel9v9
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, I can't really go beyond what the Scriptures say. That we have found fossils of snakes with hindlegs simply tells us that God made some creatures like that. I do not think it can be used to prove macroevolution on one hand, nor God's curse on the serpent on the other, because, while God's judgment is true, it likely involved a different creature and it was not a slow and gradual change, but miraculous and instant.
Also, too, people are born with deformities. Could this be an example of a deformity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah, yeah. I tend to listen to podcasts on my iPhone with AirPods and with noise cancellation turned on while doing household work. It helps me to pay attention to what they say. It's clear and easy enough to track if we just follow their train of thought, but if we're distracted, it can be easy to get lost. So I can only recommend finding a time and a place that allows you to focus and giving it a proper listen.

What Dr. Doyle is saying is essentially this: the theory of macroevolution is a belief system. So is Christianity — they are both drawn out of evidence. He's comparing the two, and makes the case why the Bible is true and why it's not compatible with macroevolution, and along the way, he points out the problems with the theory of macroevolution (mostly from a scientific and non-theological standpoint as he's a scientist and not a theologian, academically speaking). I think if you listen to his whole interview it gets clearer.

A blessed Good Friday to you!
I’m glad it’s a scientist speaking.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Also, too, people are born with deformities. Could this be an example of a deformity?

I don't know! I don't know the details, but I suppose it could be either a species or a deformed species.

Ok, I’ve seen enough names of scientists who don’t believe in Darwinism to understand, but how does the LCMS know that theistic evolution isn’t a fact?

Dr. Doyle answers exactly that in his interview from multiple angles, so I can suggest giving it another listen if you missed it. I can answer it from a philosophical point of view, however, in that it's not really sensible to say that "theistic evolution is a fact", for it is a belief system that mixes what the Bible says on one hand, and Pantheistic philosophy on the other.

Most systems of thoughts, religions, beliefs or philosophies are based on some external evidence, and they are all logical within their own framework. But just because they have evidence or an internal logic, it doesn't mean that they are true.

For example, the idea of Purgatory is perfectly logical in the Roman Catholic framework, but that doesn't mean that it's true. Or to use a different example, it's possible to argue that the universe governs itself because we can observe laws of nature, but that doesn't mean it's true. This brings me to Pantheism, which is the belief that the universe itself is god, an impersonal god (not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), that creates itself and sustains itself. I argue that most atheist and secular people today are Pantheists. That is, if someone believes the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing, and to sustain and develop itself with remarkable precision, that, in my mind, is essentially Pantheism. And the problem with Pantheism is that it's very different from what the Bible teaches and it's the underlying assumption or default position of secular macroevolution advocates. It's very popular in our day, and because it's popular, the idea tends to bleed into the church, and it becomes mixed with Christian teaching and becomes a form of theistic evolution theory.

In short, Dr. Doyle answers your question using the method of scientific research, which is good, but what I want to add is that there's an underlying problem that has to do with philosophy or faith. And this is, simply explained: If we consider Pantheism on one side, and Christianity on the other, a mix of these two is not going to be true to either Pantheism or Christianity but becomes something new and different. Again, instead of harmonising two things into one, it becomes a third thing. So instead of being true, it's a belief system that mixes truth with error into a new system.

This is a very complex subject, but the thing I want to emphasise is that under the belief of macroevolution there is a very distinct worldview that is contrary to the Scriptures. So theistic evolution has problems from the outset, but also demonstratable problems as Dr. Doyle points out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FaithT
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't know! I don't know the details, but I suppose it could be either a species or a deformed species.



Dr. Doyle answers exactly that in his interview from multiple angles, so I can suggest giving it another listen if you missed it. I can answer it from a philosophical point of view, however, in that it's not really sensible to say that "theistic evolution is a fact", for it is a belief system that mixes what the Bible says on one hand, and Pantheistic philosophy on the other.

Most systems of thoughts, religions, beliefs or philosophies are based on some external evidence, and they are all logical within their own framework. But just because they have evidence or an internal logic, it doesn't mean that they are true.

For example, the idea of Purgatory is perfectly logical in the Roman Catholic framework, but that doesn't mean that it's true. Or to use a different example, it's possible to argue that the universe governs itself because we can observe laws of nature, but that doesn't mean it's true. This brings me to Pantheism, which is the belief that the universe itself is god, an impersonal god (not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), that creates itself and sustains itself. I argue that most atheist and secular people today are Pantheists. That is, if someone believes the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing, and to sustain and develop itself with remarkable precision, that, in my mind, is essentially Pantheism. And the problem with Pantheism is that it's very different from what the Bible teaches and it's the underlying assumption or default position of secular macroevolution advocates. It's very popular in our day, and because it's popular, the idea tends to bleed into the church, and it becomes mixed with Christian teaching and becomes a form of theistic evolution theory.

In short, Dr. Doyle answers your question using the method of scientific research, which is good, but what I want to add is that there's an underlying problem that has to do with philosophy or faith. And this is, simply explained: If we consider Pantheism on one side, and Christianity on the other, a mix of these two is not going to be true to either Pantheism or Christianity but becomes something new and different. Again, instead of harmonising two things into one, it becomes a third thing. So instead of being true, it's a belief system that mixes truth with error into a new system.

This is a very complex subject, but the thing I want to emphasise is that under the belief of macroevolution there is a very distinct worldview that is contrary to the Scriptures. So theistic evolution has problems from the outset, but also demonstratable problems as Dr. Doyle points out.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Do you happen to know which podcast Dr. Doyle talks about this? Podcast 1, 2, or 3?
>>>>>>>
I don't know! I don't know the details, but I suppose it could be either a species or a deformed species.



Dr. Doyle answers exactly that in his interview from multiple angles, so I can suggest giving it another listen if you missed it. I can answer it from a philosophical point of view, however, in that it's not really sensible to say that "theistic evolution is a fact", for it is a belief system that mixes what the Bible says on one hand, and Pantheistic philosophy on the other.>>>>>>
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Do you happen to know which podcast Dr. Doyle talks about this? Podcast 1, 2, or 3?
>>>>>>>

Sure, no problem! I think it's helpful to understand his whole line of reasoning, so what he says will probably be clearer if you listen to the whole thing again. But if memory serves me right, I think he's explaining most of the problems in the 3rd interview.
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure, no problem! I think it's helpful to understand his whole line of reasoning, so what he says will probably be clearer if you listen to the whole thing again. But if memory serves me right, I think he's explaining most of the problems in the 3rd interview.
I listened to the third interview and didn’t hear the answer to my question, except he talked about mitochondrial DNA. I still don’t get how the LCMS knows that theistic evolution is false.


This is interesting, though…..
https://www.discovery.org/m/2004/08/micromacrosum.pdf


EDIT: maybe the above link isn’t as interesting as I thought. I didn’t know that the Discovery Institute was a conservative think tank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I listened to the third interview and didn’t hear the answer to my question, except he talked about mitochondrial DNA. I still don’t get how the LCMS knows that theistic evolution is false.


This is interesting, though…..
https://www.discovery.org/m/2004/08/micromacrosum.pdf


EDIT: maybe the above link isn’t as interesting as I thought. I didn’t know that the Discovery Institute was a conservative think tank

Well, Dr. Doyle is not discussing snakes with hindlegs. But he is talking about how Scripture and the theory of macroevolution are incompatible, and then he goes on to compare and illustrate by demonstratable examples using scientific method as to why the theory of macroevolution is problematic — all of which is to say that theistic evolution is false. This is his point, exactly, so I'm not sure how he didn't answer your question. Or did you have a question that is not about macroevolution or theistic evolution that I missed?
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,254
1,930
64
St. Louis
✟439,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, Dr. Doyle is not discussing snakes with hindlegs. But he is talking about how Scripture and the theory of macroevolution are incompatible, and then he goes on to compare and illustrate by demonstratable examples using scientific method as to why the theory of macroevolution is problematic — all of which is to say that theistic evolution is false. This is his point, exactly, so I'm not sure how he didn't answer your question. Or did you have a question that is not about macroevolution or theistic evolution that I missed?
My question was how can the LCMS know that theistic evolution isn’t a fact. I meant from a scientific perspective. Like, what scientifically is off about it? Or I guess he answered and it sailed over my head.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Site Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
2,131
1,826
39
London
Visit site
✟560,536.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
My question was how can the LCMS know that theistic evolution isn’t a fact. I meant from a scientific perspective. Like, what scientifically is off about it? Or I guess he answered and it sailed over my head.

Yeah, that's precisely what he was talking about. Maybe giving it a listen one more time? Third time's the charm!
 
Upvote 0