• 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.

The truth about evolution

Yoder777

Senior Veteran
Nov 11, 2010
4,782
458
✟30,081.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The real truth about evolution is that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we share a common ancestor with chimps, provided it is God who made it possible. Please consider these words of Charles Darwin.


If God is within all things at all times, then the course of evolutionary history followed his ultimate plan. God evolved man so that he could become man. It is the image of God, not the dust of the ground, that makes us human.


According to Teilhard de Chardin, the Catholic priest who discovered Peking Man, the ultimate purpose of evolution is oneness with God.


The word "miracle" originally meant an "object of wonder." A wondrous event can point to God's presence without it being supernatural. Consider all the seemingly random chemical processes involved in the development of a flower from a small seed to a blooming plant. Is that not a miracle?

The debate ultimately isn't about creation vs. evolution but between religion and materialism. Some scientists, like Stephen J. Gould, have considered science and religion as not mutually exclusive:

Nonoverlapping Magisteria
by Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," 1997

Theodosius Dobzhansky, founder of modern evolutionary theory, was a devout Christian.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)
Transcribed from The American Biology Teacher, March 1973
light

Michael Behe's sworn testimony at Kitzmiller v. Dover showed that Intelligent Design is not science. Let's break it down.


If Intelligent Design is science, why hasn't it appeared in peer-reviewed science journals?

During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[46]
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you accept Intelligent Design as science, do you accept astrology as well?


Under oath, did Behe admit that evolution explains more than Intelligent Design advocates are willing to concede?

I don't "believe" in evolution in the sense that one believes in the Bible or the deity of Christ. I simply accept it as a legitimate scientific theory that may have been God's method of creation.


The first chapters of Genesis, like the Book of Revelation, are highly symbolic and when we base an entire theology on a literal interpretation of these texts, it becomes very confusing.


How could there be literal 24-hour days before the creation of the sun?

Why does Genesis 2:4 say "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" if Genesis 1 intends us to believe the earth was created in six literal days? Was it six days or one day, "the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"?

If the first chapters of Genesis were meant to be interpreted literally, why do they contradict each other? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 disagree as to the order of what was created when.

The important point is that regardless of how the universe was made, Genesis tells us why it was made and by whom so that we may glorify him.

N. T. Wright refers to Genesis as a myth, not in the sense of a falsehood but as a truth spoken through poetic language.

N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve
YouTube - N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve

Evolution takes on a whole new meaning in light of Christ. We're not the pinnacle of evolution, Christ is, and we're light years away from being anything like him. Through God's grace alone will we move beyond the chaos of our animal nature.
 

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yep NT Wright got that right, he must be reading a different Bible to what the Evangelical Christians read. Maybe the Morman one?


10 dangers of theistic evolution

'Theistic evolution" is an enigma within itself. You have God portrayed as an unwanted intruder on the front of a construct designed to keep out any kind of intelligence. Then either out of ignorance, for the sake of being disingenuous, or in the cause of using God as live bait, the cause of "beneficial mutations" is granted.

Recourse is then sought in the scientific evidence for Darwinism when in fact what you have are speculations and a deep faith in Darwinian evolution governing what counts as science.
 
Upvote 0

Yoder777

Senior Veteran
Nov 11, 2010
4,782
458
✟30,081.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Did you actually read the Charles Darwin quote in my OP?

Recourse is then sought in the scientific evidence for Darwinism when in fact what you have are speculations and a deep faith in Darwinian evolution governing what counts as science.

Did you look at Michael Behe's epic fail testimony at Dover?
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The real truth about evolution is that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we share a common ancestor with chimps, provided it is God who made it possible.
Check your interpretation of Darwinian literature.


Evolution takes on a whole new meaning in light of Christ. We're not the pinnacle of evolution, Christ is, and we're light years away from being anything like him. Through God's grace alone will we move beyond the chaos of our animal nature.
Evolution means what it is supposed to in light of Christ and in compliance with the evidence. Man remain as man.
 
Upvote 0

Yoder777

Senior Veteran
Nov 11, 2010
4,782
458
✟30,081.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Unlike the creationists of this forum, I've actually met and talked with a prominent Intelligent Design advocate. About six years ago, I saw a lecture by Jonathan Wells.

His arguments against evolution were tired and had already been refuted a thousand times, such as the Cambrian explosion. In fact, this was about four years after he had written Icons of Evolution, and he hadn't come up with any new arguments against evolution.

In his presentation, he quoted Charles Darwin out of context to make evolution appear anti-religion, yet when you look at the full quote, it clearly says that Darwin did not intend his theory to be anti-religion. In the question and answer session, I asked him why he quoted Darwin out of context and he was caught completely off guard, as if he had never read the actual quote.

I then asked Wells what his involvement was with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, since Wells' own page at the Unification Church website says that he studied biology because Moon instructed him to "destroy Darwinism." Wells said that he would not discuss his involvement with Moon publicly and that I could ask him in private after the lecture. When I asked him about his involvement with Moon, he denied what his own web page says. Wells actually told me to my face that Moon was originally against him earning a degree in biology, despite what his own web page says.

I then asked Wells if there is an Intelligent Design explanation for the endogenous retroviral insertions that humans share with apes. Wells actually said that God, in creating man, may have used a chimp's embryo. He honestly said that God may have used a chimp's embryo for creating man, which makes me wonder why he can't accept the more obvious explanation of evolution instead of this ad hoc religious tomfoolery.

When I left the lecture, I had the strong impression that Wells was an arrogant person who misrepresented facts and shouldn't be trusted. Coming into the lecture, I had no bias against Intelligent Design, yet if he's one of its most prominent scientists, that places ID into question.
 
Upvote 0

crawfish

Veteran
Feb 21, 2007
1,731
125
Way out in left field
✟25,043.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

If you value honesty, you'll try to figure why this post is dead wrong and does not reflect the beliefs of a TE. If you don't, then feel free to repeat it as much as you want.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We've come a long way since Darwin's day and evidence amassed against his assertions are prioritized over his attack on religion. As for his quotes, all they do is show that Darwinism was in fact designed to exclude all intelligence from the creation of life, his appeals to the divinity of natural forces and their ability to create man notwithstanding. It is still a random process and these unsubstantiated claims of Darwin only open the floodgates for the likes of Hawking to make baseless assertions on the origin of natural processes themselves. And like Darwin's claims are true because God is responsible for natural processes, Hawking can be merited because God is responsible for the process which brings the proccesses which bring natural processes into being. That is, until another materialist decides to make a claim, then it is true because God is responsible for the process which brings the process which bring the proccess which bring the natural proccesses into being. "You're doing it wrong".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yoder777

Senior Veteran
Nov 11, 2010
4,782
458
✟30,081.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Yoder777

Senior Veteran
Nov 11, 2010
4,782
458
✟30,081.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
St. Augustine, centuries before Darwin, wrote favorably of evolution:

 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
St. Augustine, centuries before Darwin, wrote favorably of evolution:

Inconsistent with Genesis, the image of man, the immateriality of life, universal law as expressed, and of course evidence depicting man was created as man. As a result, what he may have been trying to say here is that man was created as man (rational seeds) and unfolded according to his will (fall) into matter.
 
Upvote 0

Yoder777

Senior Veteran
Nov 11, 2010
4,782
458
✟30,081.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

How do you presume to know what Augustine meant? Augustine wrote that when our interpretation of Scripture disagrees with the facts of science, its our interpretation that needs to be changed. Otherwise, Augustine wrote, we risk embarrassing the Christian faith.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As just outlined.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
 
Upvote 0

crawfish

Veteran
Feb 21, 2007
1,731
125
Way out in left field
✟25,043.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think the person who wrote that article knows anything about TE.

I appreciate you noticing this. I wish more non-evo Creationists would make some effort to actually understand us, rather than jump to conclusions based on their own biases.
 
Upvote 0