The Lie of Evolution

[One Of The Elect]

Should Evolution Be Taken Seriously By Christians?
My Opinion Is No! What Say You?​

 

[Speedwell]

Should Evolution Be Taken Seriously By Christians?
My Opinion Is No! What Say You?​

Why does it have to be a "lie," an intentional falsehood? Why can't it just be wrong?

 

[Tolworth John]

Christians have to take evolution seriously as it is one of the major belief systems in todays world.
If one does not take what it teaches seriously one cannot talk to those who believe it and be able to answer their questions/objections.

 

[NobleMouse]

Should Evolution Be Taken Seriously By Christians?
My Opinion Is No! What Say You?​

Hello One of the Elect! My view is that (Darwinian) evolution is an interesting proposition; however, is clear (IMO) that the idea was conceived in the absence of Biblical doctrine. Genesis 1 states 10 times that plants/animals reproduce 'according to their kinds' (see Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). This of course allows for variability within a kind, but does not allow for evolution (developing gradually, from a simple form to a more complex form). Theistic evolutionists in the forum here will have more to say on the topic as they generally either regard the creation account as allegory/poetic form or reinterpret it to fit with billions of years, but I've committed to a plain interpretation of Genesis and the references to it from the NT, including those by Jesus. Not looking to sway anyone reading my response, just my conviction on the topic and so be encouraged in your convictions on the topic as well.

Should evolution be taken seriously by Christians? While I believe the Earth is not billions of years old, I agree with @Tolworth John in that by understanding evolution and the underlying belief system(s) of secular science, this can position you to be able to provide informative dialog (1) and possibly also open doors to others who may not know the Lord where you can share the gospel (2).

I think the intent behind your question may have been: Should Christians believe evolution? If so, fortunately it's of no bearing with regard to salvation (thankfully); however, just because the vast majority of the scientific community believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason a Christian should feel obligated. Now, if you are a scientist working in mainstream science and happen to believe like YEC's do, you may be wise to be careful in expressing this opinion at the workplace

 

[miamited]

Hi oneoftheelect,

Maybe I'm reading your proposition wrong and so I'll ask. It seems that some here think that by asking if christians should not 'take seriously' evolution, that we don't understand it and the teaching of it. If that's the case, then I'll change my answer. But, if you're actually asking if christians should 'believe' that evolution is a true and correct, in whatever degree or form of evolution one believes, answer for why you and I stand upon the earth today, then I agree that is not the case. My stance is that about 6,000 years ago God created all that exists in this realm. Stars, planets, asteroids, trees, flowers, grasses, rocks, hills, bugs and all animals and man are no more than about 6,000 years old. That's the simple and, to me, quite clear explanation of the existence of all things. Repeated for us fairly concisely in the law of the Sabbath. For in 6 days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Now some say that it isn't necessary to believe all that God has told us, but to merely believe the part about his Son, but I take pause at that. When Jesus tells his disciples about the day of his Father's judgment he warns them that many will be turned away. These aren't many unbelievers. These are people who claim of themselves to have done great things in the name of Jesus. They surely believed, while living upon the earth, the things about Jesus being God's Son. That God would answer them for their prayers asking for things to be done in the name of Jesus. So, I have to pause and ask myself, well, what was it that they didn't get right? Now, everyone always answers me, well, it was their heart. But isn't whether we believe all that God has told us a problem of our heart?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[mozo41]

"evolution is the a/effect life has on matter"

 

[One Of The Elect]

Hello One of the Elect! My view is that (Darwinian) evolution is an interesting proposition; however, is clear (IMO) that the idea was conceived in the absence of Biblical doctrine. Genesis 1 states 10 times that plants/animals reproduce 'according to their kinds' (see Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). This of course allows for variability within a kind, but does not allow for evolution (developing gradually, from a simple form to a more complex form). Theistic evolutionists in the forum here will have more to say on the topic as they generally either regard the creation account as allegory/poetic form or reinterpret it to fit with billions of years, but I've committed to a plain interpretation of Genesis and the references to it from the NT, including those by Jesus. Not looking to sway anyone reading my response, just my conviction on the topic and so be encouraged in your convictions on the topic as well.

Should evolution be taken seriously by Christians? While I believe the Earth is not billions of years old, I agree with @Tolworth John in that by understanding evolution and the underlying belief system(s) of secular science, this can position you to be able to provide informative dialog (1) and possibly also open doors to others who may not know the Lord where you can share the gospel (2).

I think the intent behind your question may have been: Should Christians believe evolution? If so, fortunately it's of no bearing with regard to salvation (thankfully); however, just because the vast majority of the scientific community believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason a Christian should feel obligated. Now, if you are a scientist working in mainstream science and happen to believe like YEC's do, you may be wise to be careful in expressing this opinion at the workplace [/QUOTE

God Created everything that is not what evolution states.And exactly plants and animal reproduce according to THEIR OWN KIND. They do not become something else entirely. We are the image of God we did not evolve from a lesser - completely different species. My work place is in the vineyard of the Lord I tread not lightly . I do what I do and say- on His behalf and direction. Evolution is a lie. Why should anyone be careful in expressing any truth anywhere God directs. You can decide if it is right to obey God or man.

 

[NobleMouse]

Yes, it is clearly stated that Adam was created from the dust of the ground (not other animals created the same day), and Eve from the rib of Adam. Well said on obeying God - goes along with if we deny Jesus before man, then He will deny us before the Father.

 

[Job 33:6]

As much as I love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who believe the earth is 6000 years old. I simply disagree. The natural evidence for an old earth, that is contained and presented in what I view as Gods miraculous creation, seems more compelling.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

One of the things that I've become convicted of, and I believe by the Holy Spirit, is what we're told about the number 666. That no one who takes the mark, either on their hand or on their forehead, will be with God.

I've prayed about this passage before and sought the wisdom of the Holy Spirit because there are a lot of people with a lot of different answers about this issue of the '666'. Some worry that it's this new epidermal chip technology, but I have to wonder. Would a chip that people use to buy and sell things as some of these chips are designed to do, be placed on the forehead? After all, the forehead has no loose skin or fatty tissue. A chip placed under the skin of one's forehead is always going to be bothersome when wearing a hat. It's bound to cause some irritation when you pull the headband of a hat down on your forehead and rub over the chip. Further, who wants to bend over their forehead to pay for things? There are just so many better places to implant a chip for that purpose. The skin on the back of the hand or around the wrist would seem to be such a better place for such a device. So, the hand would work well, but the Scriptures say hand or forehead.

I have for quite some time been convicted that this isn't talking about some new technology that's going to come along, but is, at it has been seen in the Scriptures an indication of what we think and what we work for. So, this number of man, is about whether or not our hands are for nothing but the work of man and our thoughts are all about the 'truth' of man.

In ancient Israel they had what were called phylacteries. These were very small boxes on thin twine or rope that one tied around their head and the little box, which was supposed to be filled with Scriptures, would hang down over the forehead. It was an indication of the things they thought about. The Scriptures are also replete with passages that speak of the 'work of our hands'. So, is it possible that this number of man, '666' is just the measure of what a man thinks and what a man does. Are his thoughts and works for the things of man or the things of God?

If there is any possibility that this is the correct understanding of the passage, then we need to rethink our understanding. This '666' isn't something that will only be happening in the future, but is something that is even being marked on people in some unseen way that only God can see, even today and in the past. We all may be marked with this mark even today if our belief in the truth and our work is based on what man tells us is the truth or the work that's important for us to do is what man tells us is important to be doing, rather than what God has said is the truth and working for what God says we should be working for. Jesus said that we are not to concern ourselves with work for perishable things. That if we will seek first the kingdom of God, all these other things will be given us as we need.

So, here's the question as it relates to this subject: Could what we believe about our existence that is dependent on the 'truth' of man be causing us to be marked with this '666' the number of man, because we refuse to believe the simple truth that God has told us?

I just throw that out there for each one to consider in their own heart. Many people will tell us that this issue isn't a salvation issue. Really? If Jesus is the creator of all that is and we are spending our life telling people that he isn't, could we be denying Jesus in the face of men? Even for those who have this idea that God started the creation billions of years ago but guided the outcome through evolution, I would ask, is that what God has said? God seems to pretty clearly say that He created the first man Adam, from the dirt of the earth. I honestly don't see how anyone could reconcile that with some belief that man just happened along as a part of the chain of evolutionary change. Jesus even referred to Adam as the first man and that he and Eve were created. In speaking of marriage he says that divorce was not a part of the plan since the beginning.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Audacious]

Hello One of the Elect! My view is that (Darwinian) evolution is an interesting proposition; however, is clear (IMO) that the idea was conceived in the absence of Biblical doctrine.

I would like to mention: if something is true, you don't need biblical doctrine to prove it. Evolution was an idea conceived based off of hard data which Darwin literally observed; it was unnecessary to consult the Bible.

Similarly, when studying virology and developing vaccines, doctors and other scientists do not think to themselves "Is this Biblical?".

Without evolution, many of the vaccines we have today wouldn't be able to exist, including the smallpox vaccine.

Should evolution be taken seriously by Christians? While I believe the Earth is not billions of years old, I agree with @Tolworth John in that by understanding evolution and the underlying belief system(s) of secular science, this can position you to be able to provide informative dialog (1) and possibly also open doors to others who may not know the Lord where you can share the gospel (2).

I am confused. How is "secular science" a belief system? It's simply a method of data-gathering and analysis.

Now, if you are a scientist working in mainstream science and happen to believe like YEC's do, you may be wise to be careful in expressing this opinion at the workplace

That would be like a car mechanic who didn't believe that gasoline powered cars. "I believe in an alternative method of engine power!"

You can't really study biology and not believe in evolution, as it is arguably the most proven theory within science, and so many different things we do today are based upon it. (Such as, like I mentioned before, vaccine development.).

 

[Tayla]

Should Evolution Be Taken Seriously By Christians?

Yes. Evolution is true, that's why.

 

[Tayla]

As much as I love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who believe the earth is 6000 years old. I simply disagree. The natural evidence for an old earth, that is contained and presented in what I view as Gods miraculous creation, seems more compelling.

The first modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia, and they migrated to all continents by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago.

 

[NobleMouse]

I would like to mention: if something is true, you don't need biblical doctrine to prove it. Evolution was an idea conceived based off of hard data which Darwin literally observed; it was unnecessary to consult the Bible.

Greetings Audacious and thank you for your input and contribution to the topic! I agree that something can be true and be known to be true without having to consult with scripture; however I do question ideas that are presented as truth that contradict scripture. Hard data does not tell us evolution is true; man's interpretation of evidence invented the idea of evolution. Darwin did not literally observe evolution (supposedly evolution is small, very incremental changes over millions of years). One cannot observe such a process unless one lives for millions of years right, so instead one has to infer this idea based upon what they see in the present. Further, one then has to ignore or reinterpret what the Bible says around the origin of life and timelines given to accept evolution... hence, my original statement that the idea of evolution was conceived in the absence of biblical doctrine.

Similarly, when studying virology and developing vaccines, doctors and other scientists do not think to themselves "Is this Biblical?".

Without evolution, many of the vaccines we have today wouldn't be able to exist, including the smallpox vaccine.

Did we (people) 'evolve' into a new kind (like dinosaurs becoming birds) to develop smallpox immunity - a contradiction to God creating each after their own kind, or did we adapt and remain the same kind in response to the smallpox vaccine - keeping in line with God creating each after their own kind? No YEC will argue that people can adapt to their environment (and respond to vaccines), in fact we see great variability of people, birds, dogs, and all life... and this lines up with scripture. Where things no longer line up with God's word is when we say that we at one time weren't even people, that we were one some simpler form of life.... ultimately at one time a single-celled organism that through a series of very fortunate events, adaptations, and mutations became what we are today.

I am confused. How is "secular science" a belief system? It's simply a method of data-gathering and analysis.

The study of the world around us and gathering data is not a belief system, more of a methodology. When this data is interpreted in a way that contradicts the Bible and one believes the word of man over the word of God when there is a contradiction between the two, one is effectively ascribing to a new belief system - that is, one belief system (God's inerrant word around how and when He created everything) is being rejected and replaced with the interpretations of man as to what is really true (the new belief system).

It was only until man started conceiving ideas of evolution and applying a uniformitarian mental framework around radiometric dating that the timelines and descriptions of the origin of life given by the Bible came into question. Relatively speaking, this is a recent idea given that Genesis was written somewhere around ~1400 BC. Prior to recently, the origin of life was understood as how the Bible, and Jesus, described it (Matthew 19:4-5) - we were created, in the beginning, as male and female - not as evolved from a genderless organism over millions of years.

That would be like a car mechanic who didn't believe that gasoline powered cars. "I believe in an alternative method of engine power!"

I follow your analogy; however, if one considers the word of God as the ultimate authority and ultimate truth, we wouldn't really call it an "alternative method". Jesus often referred to and quoted the OT, showing his confidence in the inspired word of God. As I've heard others say on the subject, I'll echo here as well in saying that I want to believe as Jesus believed and I want to live as Jesus lived. Admittedly, I often fail to do so and so my only hope of salvation is by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

You can't really study biology and not believe in evolution, as it is arguably the most proven theory within science, and so many different things we do today are based upon it. (Such as, like I mentioned before, vaccine development.).

Thank you for your feedback. My intent with the responses I gave is not to mock or ridicule, and I respect your perspective brother. My angle on this topic, rather is mainly just to encourage those who do take the Genesis account of creation at it's word and defend it as a reasonable perspective. Matthew 24:35 says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." The word of God will be forever true so Christians should not feel compelled to abandon or compromise in holding to it in the face of the ideas of man.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Why does it have to be a "lie," an intentional falsehood? Why can't it just be wrong?

An unintentional falsehood is still a falsehood.

 

[Speedwell]

An unintentional falsehood is still a falsehood.

But is not a lie. A lie is by definition intentional, and that is how the theory of evolution is being characterized. So I still want to know why evolution is a lie; why can't it just be wrong?

 

[Dawnhammer]

Should Evolution Be Taken Seriously By Christians?
My Opinion Is No! What Say You?​

So there is no evolution, only DNA changing by adaptation, “Tapping” existing DNA.

Why not just say God makes small divine changes to every creature as needed.

Theology is sound and science behind it as valid as with that adapting, tapping and dancing.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

So there is no evolution, only DNA changing by adaptation, “Tapping” existing DNA.

Why not just say God makes small divine changes to every creature as needed.

Theology is sound and science behind it as valid as with that adapting, tapping and dancing.

Its like saying a computer program will remember the settings you last saved it with.

The program may remember the different settings, but if will never become a new version of software. The changes made were inherent within the program to begin with.

 

[Dawnhammer]

The program may remember the different settings, but if will never become a new version of software. The changes made were inherent within the program to begin with.

That doesn’t even work with computer programs nowadays

Metamorphic code - Wikipedia

Let alone on living systems. Viruses jumping from one species to another are not “tapping” anything. They evolve by rewriting their DNA.

I bet if human was just a skin put over a glowing gas bag labeled “divine spark” and everything else in creation worked by evolution nobody would have any problem with it. Would make our divine status clear.

“What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god”

Would also be nice for our self esteem I guess. Like imagining all the universe revolves around Earth.

Damn science stripping all of that away.

 

[Audacious]

I agree that something can be true and be known to be true without having to consult with scripture

It is my view that, if hard evidence contradicts an interpretation of the Bible, I need to change my interpretation.

However I do question ideas that are presented as truth that contradict scripture. Hard data does not tell us evolution is true; man's interpretation of evidence invented the idea of evolution.

It is nearly impossible to deny evolution at this stage, as we have witnessed speciation, use evolutionary theory in developing biological processes (see: many vaccines), and other such things.

Gotta go with where the data lies.

Darwin did not literally observe evolution (supposedly evolution is small, very incremental changes over millions of years). One cannot observe such a process unless one lives for millions of years right, so instead one has to infer this idea based upon what they see in the present. Further, one then has to ignore or reinterpret what the Bible says around the origin of life and timelines given to accept evolution... hence, my original statement that the idea of evolution was conceived in the absence of biblical doctrine.

You can find enough evidence of something happening to know that it is true even without direct observation. For example: we're pretty sure that dinosaurs existed, partly because we keep finding all these nice fossils.

Did we (people) 'evolve' into a new kind (like dinosaurs becoming birds) to develop smallpox immunity - a contradiction to God creating each after their own kind, or did we adapt and remain the same kind in response to the smallpox vaccine - keeping in line with God creating each after their own kind?

It is the smallpox in the vaccine which evolved, actually.

No YEC will argue that people can adapt to their environment (and respond to vaccines), in fact we see great variability of people, birds, dogs, and all life... and this lines up with scripture. Where things no longer line up with God's word is when we say that we at one time weren't even people, that we were one some simpler form of life.... ultimately at one time a single-celled organism that through a series of very fortunate events, adaptations, and mutations became what we are today.

I am confused as to your point here. YEC has arguments, yeah, they're just all disproven in some way and/or have no evidence backing them.

The study of the world around us and gathering data is not a belief system, more of a methodology. When this data is interpreted in a way that contradicts the Bible and one believes the word of man over the word of God when there is a contradiction between the two, one is effectively ascribing to a new belief system - that is, one belief system (God's inerrant word around how and when He created everything) is being rejected and replaced with the interpretations of man as to what is really true (the new belief system).

Deciding that there was a Noadic flood when we know there is not one is like staring at your own child and saying you do not see them. The evidence is there, but you're pretending it isn't because it doesn't fit your worldview.

It's like all the people who denied that the Earth was a sphere because Satan was making the data look true.

It was only until man started conceiving ideas of evolution and applying a uniformitarian mental framework around radiometric dating that the timelines and descriptions of the origin of life given by the Bible came into question. Relatively speaking, this is a recent idea given that Genesis was written somewhere around ~1400 BC. Prior to recently, the origin of life was understood as how the Bible, and Jesus, described it (Matthew 19:4-5) - we were created, in the beginning, as male and female - not as evolved from a genderless organism over millions of years.

Gender evolved. Is that a problem?

I follow your analogy; however, if one considers the word of God as the ultimate authority and ultimate truth, we wouldn't really call it an "alternative method".

This is not a point in your favor; you can say that about literally anything. The Bible/God, or your crazy neighbor who hands out pamphlets that say you can cure diabetes with tumeric consumption.

Jesus often referred to and quoted the OT, showing his confidence in the inspired word of God. As I've heard others say on the subject, I'll echo here as well in saying that I want to believe as Jesus believed and I want to live as Jesus lived. Admittedly, I often fail to do so and so my only hope of salvation is by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm sure the vast majority of Christians, myself included, feel this way.