The truth about evolution

[Yoder777]

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.

With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us... On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance... The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence.
Cretinism or Evilution?: Darwin Quotations on Design

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.

By the way: remember the contemporary theories of Darwin and others concerning the descent of man from monkeys. Without engaging in any theories, Christ explicitly declares that in man, in addition to an animal world, there is also a spiritual world. And what of it? What difference does it make where man is descended from..., God still breathed the breath of life into him. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Dostoevsky Studies :: Dostoevsky and Natural Science

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

The increasing complexity of matter has not only led to higher forms of consciousness, but accordingly to more personalization, of which human beings are the highest attained form in the known universe. They are completely individualized, free centers of operation. It is in this way that man is said to be made in the image of God, who is the highest form of personality. Teilhard expressly stated that in the Omega Point, when the universe becomes One, human persons will not be suppressed, but super-personalized. Personality will be infinitely enriched. This is because the Omega Point unites creation, and the more it unites, the increasing complexity of the universe aids in higher levels of consciousness. Thus, as God creates, the universe evolves towards higher forms of complexity, consciousness, and finally with humans, personality, because God, who is drawing the universe towards Him, is a person.
Omega Point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[45]
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?

Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modeling of evolution with Snoke had, in fact, shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years. This would happen even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[47][48]
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Francis S. Collins

Collins, a pioneering medical geneticist who once headed the Human Genome Project, adapts his title from President Clinton's remarks announcing completion of the first phase of the project in 2000: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life." Collins explains that as a Christian believer, "the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship." This marvelous book combines a personal account of Collins's faith and experiences as a genetics researcher with discussions of more general topics of science and spirituality, especially centering around evolution. Following the lead of C.S. Lewis, whose Mere Christianity was influential in Collins's conversion from atheism, the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God.
Amazon.com: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (9781416542742): Francis S. Collins: Books

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.

Clement of Alexandria

"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

"And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).

Augustine

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

"We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it" (ibid., 11:7).
Creation and Genesis

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.

 

[wanelad]

Yep NT Wright got that right, he must be reading a different Bible to what the Evangelical Christians read. Maybe the Morman one?


http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution

 

[Yoder777]

This should be quoted on Fundies Say the Darndest Things:

Yep NT Wright got that right, he must be reading a different Bible to what the Evangelical Christians read. Maybe the Morman one?

 

[Greg1234]

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.

 

[Yoder777]

'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.

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?

 

[Greg1234]

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.

 

[Yoder777]

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.

 

[crawfish]

'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.

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.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

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".

 

[AnswersInHovind]

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

I don't think the person who wrote that article knows anything about TE.

 

[Yoder777]

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

Theodosius Dobzhansky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Teilhard de Chardin, the anthropologist who discovered Peking Man, was a devout Christian.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having said this, can we please move beyond the creationist and atheist claim that evolution and theism are incompatible?

 

[Yoder777]

St. Augustine, centuries before Darwin, wrote favorably of evolution:

In the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine explained that at the creation God implanted "rational seeds" (rationes seminales), which would develop over time into the products of creation. In other words, the potential for all natural things was created in the beginning, but not all things have existed since the beginning. Rather, many natural things developed over time in a historical unfolding of the natural order.

Augustine’s idea of implanted rational seeds imparted a developmental aspect to nature. In the 19th century, the Christian reception of Darwin's theory of evolution of species by means of natural selection was greatly facilitated by Augustinian views of rational seeds (see the works by Messenger and McKeough, cited below).
Augustine

 

[Greg1234]

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.

 

[Yoder777]

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.

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.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

As just outlined.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

 

[crawfish]

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.