Theistic evolution: Why it doesn't work with Scripture

[cds113089]

Theistic evolutionists accept the fallible (atheistic) discoveries of "science" over the infallible Word of God. I don't understand how you can accept fallible humans over the infallible Word of God. I have no interest in debating the scientific points of evolution, because when it comes to God, science is irrelevant. God requires no evidence. Scripture, not science, is the ultimate authority and truth. Here are some examples of how evolution/the Big Bang and Scripture contradict each other:

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:1[/BIBLE]

IN THE BEGINNING, God created earth. Big Bang supporters hold that the earth was not created until the latter third of time as we know it.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:2[/BIBLE]

Commonly overlooked verse, but from what I learned in earth science, evolutionists/Big-Bang supporters hold that the earth was originally a molten rock. Here it says that the earth was a dark, watery abyss.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:3[/BIBLE]

Another hard problem for theistic evolutionists. Here we see that light was created AFTER earth. According to evolutionists/Big bang supporters and progressive creationists, light was created several billions of years before the earth.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:5[/BIBLE]

Here we see the phrase, "EVENING and MORNING." People who say that these seven days are "ages" of time overlook this phrase. Evening and morning have always made up a literal, 24-hour day. I have never once seen in the Bible God use evening or morning to symbolize a longer length of time.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:16[/BIBLE]

God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, after the earth, sea, and plants. Big Bang supporters say that the moon is the same age as the earth, the sun is about 500 million years older than the earth, and the oldest stars are several billion years older than the earth.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:20[/BIBLE]

The fish and the birds were created on the same day, but evolutionists separate them by hundreds of millions of years. There is also no mention of reptiles, which are supposed to come in between the fish and the birds according to evolutionists. Instead, reptiles were created on the sixth day.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:24[/BIBLE]

You can see here that the reptiles, the "creeping things" were created on the sixth day. I cannot think of a different definition for creeping things other than reptiles like snakes and lizards, and "beasts of the earth" is a perfect description of the dinosaurs. But reptiles, and the dinosaurs, are supposed to come in between the birds and the fish, but they were both created on the fifth day. This discrepancy is commonly overlooked, but it is a pretty big discrepancy.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:26[/BIBLE]

Man has had dominion over the earth since the beginning according to the Word of God. Evolutionists say that man has only had dominion over the earth for a tiny speck of time, only a few thousand years.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:29-30[/BIBLE]

According to the Word of God here, all animals and humans were originally herbivores. But according to evolutionists, carnivores existed millions of years before humans. If carnivores did not exist millions of years before humans, the entire evolutionist theory of natural selection collapses.

[BIBLE]Genesis 2:2[/BIBLE]

I've never heard a theistic evolutionist explain this seventh day. Supposedly, all the other days were ages of hundreds of millions of years. But then, how could God bless a single day, the Sabbath, without the seven days each being literal 24-hour days?

[BIBLE]Genesis 2:5-6[/BIBLE]

Evolutionists hold that rain created the seas, at least according to my earth science teacher. But according to this, there was no rain in the beginning, instead there was a mist that watered the ground.

[BIBLE]Genesis 2:23[/BIBLE]

This whole verse crumbles with theistic evolution beliefs. Man and woman were created special for each other, but according to evolutionists, men and women simply evolved from apes, no more especially made for each other than any other animal mates.

[BIBLE]Genesis 3:17-18[/BIBLE]

The sin of Adam caused poisonous plants to grow. I don't know exactly what theistic evolutionists think about this verse, but I'm pretty sure that evolutionists believe that poisonous plants have existed as long as edible plants.

[BIBLE]Genesis 3:19[/BIBLE]

No one had to work for food or anything else until Adam sinned. Evolutionists hold that it was always a struggle to survive. An interesting comment by God: "To dust you shall return." Is it any coincidence that dust is formed from dead human skin?

[BIBLE]Romans 5:12[/BIBLE]

One of the most important Christian beliefs--death and bloodshed and suffering came into the world because of one man's sin. There was no death and bloodshed before Adam sinned. But death and bloodshed and the suffering of creatures is essential to the theory of evolution and natural selection.

Life must, logically then, be young, because since we know there was no death or suffering (also, note that all animals were herbivores) before Adam sinned, then the earth would be ridiculously overpopulated with animals after 500+ million years.

 

[gluadys]

Theistic evolutionists accept the fallible (atheistic) discoveries of "science" over the infallible Word of God.

Wrong. TEs accept that God's Word is truth wherever we find it; in the Word made flesh, in the Word embedded in God's creation, and in the written Word. Science, to the extent that it is truth, is God's truth, for God is the author of all truth. Furthermore, all human interpretations of God's Word are fallible, and that applies to interpretations of God's written Word just as much as to scientific interpretations of God's Word in creation.

I don't understand how you can accept fallible humans over the infallible Word of God.

We don't. We question fallible interpretations of God's creation and we also question fallible interpretations of scripture. We never question the truth of God's Word. Rather we seek to understand God's Word whenever and wherever we encounter it.

I have no interest in debating the scientific points of evolution, because when it comes to God, science is irrelevant.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Your statement is a blunt denial of the truth of Genesis 1:1. How can the study of creation (for that is what science is) be irrelevant when it comes to God? God is the creator of the natural world (heaven and earth) which scientists study. Most of the first scientists were Christian and studied creation so that they could more fully appreciate the glory of God. I fail to see how that is irrelevant when it comes to God.

God requires no evidence.

True. That is why it is creation and not the Creator which is the proper study of science. That is why no finding of science can rule out creation.

Scripture, not science, is the ultimate authority and truth.

False. God's Word is the ultimate authority and truth. Scripture is not the only way God speaks to us. We need to accept God's truth no matter how God speaks to us. If your statement above were true, scripture would be more authoritative than the Holy Spirit. It would be more authoritative than Jesus. Are you forgetting that Jesus is the very Word of God incarnate?

How can there be any exalting of the Word of God in one form (written) over the Word of God in other forms? This is bibliolatry, not sound Christian theology.

Here are some examples of how evolution/the Big Bang and Scripture contradict each other:

I won't go through the examples one by one, for they are all founded on your belief that you, a fallible human being, are privy to an infallible interpretation of the scriptures cited. Even if you disagree with other interpretations of scripture, I would hope you might have enough humility to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, your interpretation of scripture could be wrong.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Theistic evolutionists accept the fallible (atheistic) discoveries of "science" over the infallible Word of God. I don't understand how you can accept fallible humans over the infallible Word of God. I have no interest in debating the scientific points of evolution, because when it comes to God, science is irrelevant. God requires no evidence. Scripture, not science, is the ultimate authority and truth. Here are some examples of how evolution/the Big Bang and Scripture contradict each other:

Life must, logically then, be young, because since we know there was no death or suffering (also, note that all animals were herbivores) before Adam sinned, then the earth would be ridiculously overpopulated with animals after 500+ million years.

There is no problem if you take Genesis non-literally. Also, as a Catholic you should know that scripture is not the only source of authority. The Church and Tradition hold just as much weight. You should also know that theistic evolution is acceptable under Church teaching.

Now if you wish to be logical, take a look at the world around you and see the evidence. Genesis must not be literal since the evidence contradicts it. It is not Satan's doing or anything of that sort. Genesis is just non-literal.

More when I finish my dinner...

 

[invisible trousers]

Your literal interpretation of Genesis creates a paradox which makes God a liar. Why would God leave all sorts of evidence of His creation, give us logic and reasoning which we can apply with science, but then have all of it contradict the bible? Since both intepretations of creation cannot be the same, God is lying to us either through science or the bible.

 

[cds113089]

False. God's Word is the ultimate authority and truth. Scripture is not the only way God speaks to us. We need to accept God's truth no matter how God speaks to us. If your statement above were true, scripture would be more authoritative than the Holy Spirit. It would be more authoritative than Jesus. Are you forgetting that Jesus is the very Word of God incarnate?

How can there be any exalting of the Word of God in one form (written) over the Word of God in other forms? This is bibliolatry, not sound Christian theology.

The last time I checked, Scripture IS God's Word. Since I don't think you or I have had an angel or the Holy Spirit look us in the face and speak to us, Scripture is what we must rely on.

I won't go through the examples one by one, for they are all founded on your belief that you, a fallible human being, are privy to an infallible interpretation of the scriptures cited. Even if you disagree with other interpretations of scripture, I would hope you might have enough humility to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, your interpretation of scripture could be wrong.

There are some things I mentioned that no interpretation can fix. What about the discrepancy between the reptiles and birds, and one of the most basic Christian beliefs, that death and suffering were brought into the world when Adam sinned? Jesus Christ Himself affirmed this in His inspired book of Romans, which is clearly speaking in a literal sense. There is also nothing in Genesis 1-11 that implies it is symbolic. What would it symbolize? Nothing. It would be pretty pointless for God to tell us about Adam and Noah if they never really existed. I should mention that there have been numerous sightings of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, from atheists and Christians alike. Once someone brought back a four-foot-long piece of wood from 13,000 feet up the mountain.

If you choose to interpret Genesis 1-11 as symbolic to satisfy the world and try to reconcile Scriptures with the common beliefs of the world, you are taking away from the Word of God. Unless Jesus Himself affirmed it, I don't think there's very much that could convince me that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11, which has always been believed as fact until Darwin came along, is wrong.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The last time I checked, Scripture IS God's Word. Since I don't think you or I have had an angel or the Holy Spirit look us in the face and speak to us, Scripture is what we must rely on.

Once again you seem to be forgetting the Church.

If you choose to interpret Genesis 1-11 as symbolic to satisfy the world and try to reconcile Scriptures with the common beliefs of the world, you are taking away from the Word of God.

Prove it.

Unless Jesus Himself affirmed it, I don't think there's very much that could convince me that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11, which has always been believed as fact until Darwin came along, is wrong.

That's not really surprising.

 

[cds113089]

There is no problem if you take Genesis non-literally. Also, as a Catholic you should know that scripture is not the only source of authority. The Church and Tradition hold just as much weight. You should also know that theistic evolution is acceptable under Church teaching.

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, when John Paul II supposedly said that evolution was okay to believe, there was a controversy about his actual quote. The official Vatican paper put out a quote that did not endorse evolution, but secular papers put out quotes that did. John Paul II was likely persuaded by advisors to say what he said.

Secondly, even though I'm probably supposed to, I don't believe that the Catechism (which as I recall does not endorse evolution anyway), or the teachings of fallible bishops and priests hold as much weight as what God has affirmed is the infallible Word. Many of the bishops and priests disagree on important issues, even things like abortion and gay marriage which Scripture clearly condemns.

Now if you wish to be logical, take a look at the world around you and see the evidence. Genesis must not be literal since the evidence contradicts it. It is not Satan's doing or anything of that sort. Genesis is just non-literal.

What holds more weight? What God says or what the world says? God MADE the world. I'm not going to get into it, but there is some evidence for a literal six-day creation.

Also, why would God write Genesis if it didn't mean anything? What would be the point? Why would Jesus affirm that He was the "Second Adam" if the first Adam never existed? Why would Jesus affirm in Romans 5:12 that Adam brought sin into the world if it wasn't true? You cannot reconcile the rest of Scripture, nor the character of God, with a symbolic interpretation of Genesis. It would mean nothing and be 100% pointless.

The reasons Christians try to say that Genesis is non-literal is because of either a) pride; or b) lack of faith. Belief in a literal 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is looked upon as stupid today, and evolution is held as the intellectual belief. But I don't recall God saying that anything He did had to be logical or have evidence. The Word overrides any physical evidence scientists may find. The Word is the ultimate truth and intellectual belief.

So why would God allow that evidence to be put there if it weren't true? The answer is simple: a test of faith. Will we believe in the physical evidence put before us that atheistic, closed-minded, evolution-biased scientists produce? Or will we believe the truth, the Word of God, over everything?

 

[cds113089]

Your literal interpretation of Genesis creates a paradox which makes God a liar. Why would God leave all sorts of evidence of His creation, give us logic and reasoning which we can apply with science, but then have all of it contradict the bible? Since both intepretations of creation cannot be the same, God is lying to us either through science or the bible.

Like I said in my other post, it's not a lie; it's simply a test of faith. Will we believe atheistic, closed-minded, evolution-biased scientists, or will we believe the ultimate truth, the Word of God?

 

[cds113089]

Once again you seem to be forgetting the Church.

What a priest says is not infallible, nor a bishop, nor a cardinal. And as I said before, there is still controversy even over what the Pope said.

Prove it.

Romans 5:12 proves it enough. Why would Paul, or whoever wrote it, say that Adam brought sin into the world if he never existed in the first place?

That's not really surprising.

What's the matter with that? I don't think it's a sin to believe in theistic evolution, but I do think that it will seriously weaken a person's faith in God. I know this because I used to believe in theistic evolution. I have a much closer relationship with Christ since I accepted Him in prayer officially, and since then He has led me to different books and websites that have convinced me that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the way to go. He has not shown me one source saying otherwise.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, when John Paul II supposedly said that evolution was okay to believe, there was a controversy about his actual quote. The official Vatican paper put out a quote that did not endorse evolution, but secular papers put out quotes that did. John Paul II was likely persuaded by advisors to say what he said.

I suggest that you read the encyclical Humani Generis (I think that's the name) put out by Pope Pius XII. The encyclical addresses evolution, saying that it is ok to believe in as long as we accept that God specially creates human souls.

Secondly, even though I'm probably supposed to, I don't believe that the Catechism (which as I recall does not endorse evolution anyway), or the teachings of fallible bishops and priests hold as much weight as what God has affirmed is the infallible Word. Many of the bishops and priests disagree on important issues, even things like abortion and gay marriage which Scripture clearly condemns.

What the people of the Church say do not matter. It's what the Church says. You know the Church is extremely anti-abortion and condemns gay marriage.

What holds more weight? What God says or what the world says? God MADE the world. I'm not going to get into it, but there is some evidence for a literal six-day creation.

Of course God made the world. What you read in Genesis and glean from it is your INTERPRETATION, not God's. Your interpretation is just as prone to error as anyone else's.

And if by "evidence" you mean half-truths and sometimes outright lies, then yes, there is evidence for YECism.

Also, why would God write Genesis if it didn't mean anything? What would be the point? Why would Jesus affirm that He was the "Second Adam" if the first Adam never existed? Why would Jesus affirm in Romans 5:12 that Adam brought sin into the world if it wasn't true? You cannot reconcile the rest of Scripture, nor the character of God, with a symbolic interpretation of Genesis. It would mean nothing and be 100% pointless.

Genesis is one of the most important books in the Bible. It sets up the entire need for Jesus and redemption and stuff. It is easy to reconcile a symbolic Genesis with the rest of the Bible. You're imposing your own mode of thought on a symbolic Genesis here. Many literalists seem to think that if Genesis is not literal, then the entire Bible must not be literal. Not only is this a slippery slope, it is simply not true. If it were, the majority of Christians would have problems with it. And they don't.

The reasons Christians try to say that Genesis is non-literal is because of either a) pride; or b) lack of faith.

No. The reason Christians say that Genesis is non-literal is because it is. Non-literality agrees with the evidence. A literal interpretation of Genesis to the extent of YECism just disagrees with the universe and reality.

Belief in a literal 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is looked upon as stupid today, and evolution is held as the intellectual belief.

Why do you think it's considered stupid? Think about it for awhile... And please don't give me an answer like "Because of Satan!".

But I don't recall God saying that anything He did had to be logical or have evidence. The Word overrides any physical evidence scientists may find. The Word is the ultimate truth and intellectual belief.

If you want to turn God into a liar then be my guest. God left a few works behind as revelations to the human race: The Bible, the Church, and the Creation. All three must agree or what is Christianity? Also, think about your first sentence in that quote. Is that REALLY a good position to hold? You can only fall back on "Goddidit" so many times before it becomes ridiculous.

So why would God allow that evidence to be put there if it weren't true? The answer is simple: a test of faith.

Once again... God created this universe and everything in it. HE placed the fossils there. The answer is not "a test of faith." The Omphalos hypothesis is just a bad position. Do I need to mention how evolution is utilized in modern science? So many things are developed off of it. I suppose you should stop taking drugs because by your logic they are inherently evil.

Will we believe in the physical evidence put before us that atheistic, closed-minded, evolution-biased scientists produce? Or will we believe the truth, the Word of God, over everything?

Evolution != Athiesm.

 

[Dark_Lite]

What a priest says is not infallible, nor a bishop, nor a cardinal. And as I said before, there is still controversy even over what the Pope said.

Humani Generis.

Romans 5:12 proves it enough. Why would Paul, or whoever wrote it, say that Adam brought sin into the world if he never existed in the first place?

You will receive varying answers to these questions. Some people believe in a symbolic Adam and Eve. Some believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve due to Church dogma. Adam and Eve translates to Dirt and Hearth. I don't know too much about the non-literal Adam and Eve position so I won't explain it. I will let someone else do it.

What's the matter with that? I don't think it's a sin to believe in theistic evolution, but I do think that it will seriously weaken a person's faith in God. I know this because I used to believe in theistic evolution. I have a much closer relationship with Christ since I accepted Him in prayer officially,

Your personal experience has no bearing on someone else's personal experience in this context. If YECism has brought you closer to God, then go for it. However, there are plenty of TEs (including myself) who are just fine with what we believe. How many anti-Catholics do you know that have any idea as to what they talk about in regards to Church doctrine? Most of the time it's a very small number. The number of them that say they know what they're talking about because they used to be Catholic is rather high. See where I'm going with this?

and since then He has led me to different books and websites that have convinced me that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the way to go. He has not shown me one source saying otherwise.

If those websites are AiG, Dr. Dino, or ICR, I highly suggest that you read TalkOrigins.

 

[gluadys]

The last time I checked, Scripture IS God's Word. Since I don't think you or I have had an angel or the Holy Spirit look us in the face and speak to us, Scripture is what we must rely on.

I never said that scripture was not God's Word. I said it was not the only vehicle of God's Word. First and foremost Christ is the Logos, the one uncreated Word of God. And that takes precedence over every created form of the Word, including scripture. Second, the witness of the Holy Spirit given to every believer is God's Word. Third, as Dark_Lite points out, the unbroken testimony of the Church and of the prophets and teachers of Israel before them is God's Word. And don't forget that it was Israel and the Church that wrote the scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so if you don't accept that these testimonies are God's Word in and of themselves, on what basis would you accept the same witness when it is written instead of spoken? Finally, just as God's Word is embedded in inspired scripture, it is embedded in God's work of creation. Creation as well as scripture testifies to the glory of its Creator.

And if you havn't heard the Holy Spirit, perhaps you haven't been listening. How can you claim to be able to interpret scripture rightly without the illumination of the Holy Spirit to assist you?

There are some things I mentioned that no interpretation can fix.

You make that assumption on the basis that you already know the correct interpretation. All of the items you mentioned are perfectly understandable under interpretations that do not conflict with scientific evidence.

Jesus Christ Himself affirmed this in His inspired book of Romans, which is clearly speaking in a literal sense.

Again you make the assumption that a literal sense is clearly intended.

There is also nothing in Genesis 1-11 that implies it is symbolic. What would it symbolize? Nothing.

There are many different ways to be non-literal. Not all of them require a one-on-one match of symbols with things symbolized.

It would be pretty pointless for God to tell us about Adam and Noah if they never really existed.

Just like it would be pointless for Jesus to tell us about a non-existant good Samaritan or a non-existent father welcoming home a non-existant prodigal son?

Jesus once said that he did nothing the Father did not do. If Jesus teaches through stories, why can't the Father and the Holy Spirit as well? Why can God not inspire the biblical writers to write stories? Why does scripture all have to be hard fact?

I should mention that there have been numerous sightings of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, from atheists and Christians alike. Once someone brought back a four-foot-long piece of wood from 13,000 feet up the mountain.

Check again. Most of these so-called findings are bogus. And even if the ark is found, it still doesn't mean the flood was global.

If you choose to interpret Genesis 1-11 as symbolic to satisfy the world

False attribution of motive. You don't know me; you don't know my motives. I am not interested in "satisfying the world." I am interested in seeking the truth in both science and scripture.

and try to reconcile Scriptures with the common beliefs of the world,

Again, false motive. I am not in the least interested in reconciling scripture with any beliefs. I do, however, insist that the truth of scripture must conform to the truth of God and the truth of God's creation. God has seen fit to reveal creation to us through scientific study. We can't pretend it is not there.

you are taking away from the Word of God.

I take nothing from the Word of God. All I do is disagree with the way you interpret scripture. To equate your opinions of scripture with the very Word of God seems to me an exercise in hubris.

Unless Jesus Himself affirmed it, I don't think there's very much that could convince me that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11, which has always been believed as fact until Darwin came along, is wrong.

I won't try to convince you otherwise. What I object to is your denigration of Christians who do not hold to this same kind of interpretation of scripture. And to you implying that we hold scripture in less regard than you do because we differ in how we interpret it. Or that we elevate the beliefs and opinions of humans above the Word of God.

 

[gluadys]

The reasons Christians try to say that Genesis is non-literal is because of either a) pride; or b) lack of faith.

That may be your belief, but it is a false belief that slanders thousands of sincere Christians who do not agree with you.

The Word overrides any physical evidence scientists may find. The Word is the ultimate truth and intellectual belief.

So why would God allow that evidence to be put there if it weren't true? The answer is simple: a test of faith. Will we believe in the physical evidence put before us that atheistic, closed-minded, evolution-biased scientists produce? Or will we believe the truth, the Word of God, over everything?

So you are willing to worship a God who lies to us in order to test our loyalty?

 

[cds113089]

I suggest that you read the encyclical Humani Generis (I think that's the name) put out by Pope Pius XII. The encyclical addresses evolution, saying that it is ok to believe in as long as we accept that God specially creates human souls.

It is okay to believe in Old-Earth Creation, which seems to be what Pius is referring to here, because with theistic evolution, God does not create human souls, they just evolve from apes.

Of course God made the world. What you read in Genesis and glean from it is your INTERPRETATION, not God's. Your interpretation is just as prone to error as anyone else's.

Symbolism just doesn't make sense. What symbolic interpretation is there for, "God created the fish of the sea and fowl of the air?"

And if by "evidence" you mean half-truths and sometimes outright lies, then yes, there is evidence for YECism.

It's on both sides. Evolutionists also often give half-truths and outright lies for their evidence. I don't rely on scientific evidence from either side; I rely on what I believe God is saying to me.

Genesis is one of the most important books in the Bible. It sets up the entire need for Jesus and redemption and stuff. It is easy to reconcile a symbolic Genesis with the rest of the Bible. You're imposing your own mode of thought on a symbolic Genesis here. Many literalists seem to think that if Genesis is not literal, then the entire Bible must not be literal. Not only is this a slippery slope, it is simply not true. If it were, the majority of Christians would have problems with it. And they don't.

Again, it weakens one's faith in God. What would be the point of making an entirely symbolic book? Even the book of Revelation, which is riddled with symbolism, isn't completely symbolic. The most important idea of Revelation, that Jesus will come back to earth, is literal. As so, the most important idea of Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth, is also literal. But theistic evolutionists, at least those who believe in the Big Bang, do not believe that God created earth. They believe that He simply allowed it to be created.

Also, unlike Revelation, there is nothing that implies Genesis is symbolic. Every time I can recall that the Bible uses symbolism, someone either a) saw it in a vision; or b) is hearing/telling a parable. Genesis is neither.

No. The reason Christians say that Genesis is non-literal is because it is. Non-literality agrees with the evidence. A literal interpretation of Genesis to the extent of YECism just disagrees with the universe and reality.

Why? And again, need I remind you, the entire idea of God disagrees with the "evidence"? Why pick and choose? I accept that the universe may have been created billions of years ago, but I do not accept that life is older than a few thousand years. That, too, defies logic.

And hold up, weren't you the one lecturing me to have enough humility to say that my interpretation of Genesis may be wrong? I do not see you providing any Scriptural evidence to back your idea up.

Why do you think it's considered stupid? Think about it for awhile... And please don't give me an answer like "Because of Satan!".

The world considers it stupid, just as most of the world considers it stupid to devote oneself completely to God. Do you see how nuns and monks are often made fun of because they have devoted themselves 100% to God and nothing else? It's pretty much the same way with YECists.

If you want to turn God into a liar then be my guest. God left a few works behind as revelations to the human race: The Bible, the Church, and the Creation. All three must agree or what is Christianity? Also, think about your first sentence in that quote. Is that REALLY a good position to hold? You can only fall back on "Goddidit" so many times before it becomes ridiculous.

What's wrong with that first sentence? If a bunch of scientists came up saying they had evidence that disproved God, assuming they actually produced convincing evidence (which is impossible, but work with me here), would you believe them? Of course not. Why? Because God needs no evidence.

This is the same argument I hear from a lot of atheists about the subject of God Himself. If an atheist would use the argument, chances are it's not an argument a Christian would use.

Neither the Bible nor the Church endorse evolution. The Bible provides no evidence for evolution, and the Church simply tolerates the belief of evolution. Neither endorses it.

Once again... God created this universe and everything in it. HE placed the fossils there. The answer is not "a test of faith." The Omphalos hypothesis is just a bad position. Do I need to mention how evolution is utilized in modern science? So many things are developed off of it. I suppose you should stop taking drugs because by your logic they are inherently evil.

God does not MAKE good people get brutally murdered or GIVE people cancer. He ALLOWS these things to happen as tests of faith. The same applies for the fossil record. Again, since these creation-evolution debates based on scientific evidence normally just go in circles, I won't get into it, but there is controversy over the fossil record because there are few transitional fossils, and none of them have been undeniably proven. Many of the "transitional" fossils shown to the public have been exposed as outright lies. I think that God has simply allowed the controversy as a test of faith. The dating methods scientists use are also quite assumption-riddled.

How is evolution used in modern science? It's not, unless you count microevolution, which is in no way related to macroevolution.

I don't know what you're talking about with this Omphalos thing or with the drugs. I don't see the Bible condemning use of legal medicines anywhere. If you mean illegal drugs, then of course they are evil and should not be used by anyone. I base my thinking off what I believe God is saying to me, not what humans are saying to me.

Evolution != Athiesm.

Evolution is an atheistic ideal, and accepting it as fact (there is a difference between accepting it and considering it) isn't the right way to go.

 

[cds113089]

I never said that scripture was not God's Word. I said it was not the only vehicle of God's Word. First and foremost Christ is the Logos, the one uncreated Word of God. And that takes precedence over every created form of the Word, including scripture. Second, the witness of the Holy Spirit given to every believer is God's Word. Third, as Dark_Lite points out, the unbroken testimony of the Church and of the prophets and teachers of Israel before them is God's Word. And don't forget that it was Israel and the Church that wrote the scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so if you don't accept that these testimonies are God's Word in and of themselves, on what basis would you accept the same witness when it is written instead of spoken? Finally, just as God's Word is embedded in inspired scripture, it is embedded in God's work of creation. Creation as well as scripture testifies to the glory of its Creator.

And if you havn't heard the Holy Spirit, perhaps you haven't been listening. How can you claim to be able to interpret scripture rightly without the illumination of the Holy Spirit to assist you?

I don't recall the Church writing anything that claimed to be infallible. I recall John, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude, James, and Moses writing things, but not the Church as a whole.

Seriously, does the Holy Spirit tell you, "Evolution is true."? Because I think the Holy Spirit is telling me, "God created the world in six literal 24-hour days." I didn't mean that no one has heard God, I meant that probably, neither of us has definite proof that the Spirit spoke to us.

You make that assumption on the basis that you already know the correct interpretation. All of the items you mentioned are perfectly understandable under interpretations that do not conflict with scientific evidence.

Again you make the assumption that a literal sense is clearly intended.

There are many different ways to be non-literal. Not all of them require a one-on-one match of symbols with things symbolized.

Like what? Why would God say that the reptiles and birds were created, then the reptiles and mammals, if it were clearly not true? And according to "science", it is not.

Just like it would be pointless for Jesus to tell us about a non-existant good Samaritan or a non-existent father welcoming home a non-existant prodigal son?

Both of these stories had points. Jesus was telling us to help those in need and to forgive those who have sinned against you. What would God be telling us by saying that the world was created in six days (with evenings and mornings, clearly meaning they are regular days) if it were completely false? What would be the moral of that story?

Jesus once said that he did nothing the Father did not do. If Jesus teaches through stories, why can't the Father and the Holy Spirit as well? Why can God not inspire the biblical writers to write stories? Why does scripture all have to be hard fact?

Again, what is the moral of Genesis 1-2? Jesus' stories had points. I don't see how Genesis interpreted symbolically could have a point.

Check again. Most of these so-called findings are bogus. And even if the ark is found, it still doesn't mean the flood was global.

The Bible clearly says it was global. Besides, do you really think that waters could rise to above 13,000 feet in one area of the world and be completely untouched in another? Since we seem to be going by scientific logic here rather than going on the assumption that God does not need to prove His existence and His stories, it is simply impossible for a local sky-high flood to occur.

False attribution of motive. You don't know me; you don't know my motives. I am not interested in "satisfying the world." I am interested in seeking the truth in both science and scripture. Again, false motive. I am not in the least interested in reconciling scripture with any beliefs. I do, however, insist that the truth of scripture must conform to the truth of God and the truth of God's creation. God has seen fit to reveal creation to us through scientific study. We can't pretend it is not there.

That same scientific study simply goes in circles. Evolutionists and creationists both stretch their findings because they are all fallible. The scientific debate leads to no conclusions. The reason people think it concludes evolution is because they automatically dismiss evidence of creation because scientists claim they can refute it, when they really cannot.

Christians will suffer persecution for their beliefs, Jesus said. The world doesn't like creationism because it's not "logical" to them since their teachers and professors have been completely one-sided on the issue of evolution, so it's a lot easier to believe in evolution.

It doesn't seem to fit with the character of God, because He seems to like us to take the harder path. Evolution is clearly an easier path than creation.

I won't try to convince you otherwise. What I object to is your denigration of Christians who do not hold to this same kind of interpretation of scripture. And to you implying that we hold scripture in less regard than you do because we differ in how we interpret it. Or that we elevate the beliefs and opinions of humans above the Word of God.

It's not that you hold humans' beliefs above the Word of God, it's that you interpret ATHEISTIC beliefs above CHRISTIAN beliefs. No one ever suggested a non-literal interpretation for Genesis until ATHEIST Charles Darwin came along, and other ATHEISTS backed up his work, and ATHEISTS set up the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Again, Romans 5:12 says it all. There is no reason Paul should say that sin entered the world because of Adam if Adam didn't exist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Theistic evolutionists accept the fallible (atheistic) discoveries of "science" over the infallible Word of God. I don't understand how you can accept fallible humans over the infallible Word of God.

Like I said in my other post, it's not a lie; it's simply a test of faith. Will we believe atheistic, closed-minded, evolution-biased scientists, or will we believe the ultimate truth, the Word of God?

perhaps one of the clearest and most forceful examplars of the evolution=atheism and science is interpretation while Scriptures are infallibly impressed by the Spirit on our minds without intervention of interpretation postings we have seen in what? 2 weeks?

these have been answered over and over as each new group of YECist discover this forum and enter into the discussion without reading anything already written here. perhaps a quiz to be able to post, or a book to read before the ability to start threads really would raise the average thread to usefulness and less redundancy.

PRATT alert

evolution != atheism
yes, evolutionary theory has been and will continue to be used to support a naturalism that says that the universe is sufficient in itself. but this is metaphysics not science.
the process of deriving truth from Scripture is under the control of hermeneutical principles, they are analogous to the epistemology of science which has evolved to read the book of nature, both require human beings to operate with principles that mix error with truth. Science is no more guilty of this then is theology, although the division of the church into lots of denominations, the private nature of religion vs the public nature of science and the relative unity of science ought to give anyone espousing these views above a pause to think.

ah the test of faith argument.
unreasonable faith as fideism posits a trickster God who not only creates with the appearance of age but with scars and a false history.

/PRATT alert.

ignorance alert

I don't know what you're talking about with this Omphalos thing

of course you don't know the vocabulary we use here.
you haven't done your homework.
this is evidence.
spend a few hours reading back threads to try to get up to speed. at least learn the vocabulary.

 

[invisible trousers]

cds113089, the advent of YEC has been one of the biggest things to turn people away from christianity. It'll only get worse, too. Constantly there are new pieces of evidence that support evolution.

It is okay to believe in Old-Earth Creation, which seems to be what Pius is referring to here, because with theistic evolution, God does not create human souls, they just evolve from apes.

Wrong. You're purposely misrepresenting both TEs and evolution itself.

Symbolism just doesn't make sense. What symbolic interpretation is there for, "God created the fish of the sea and fowl of the air?"

Symbolism makes sense because it's the only way that makes God a consistent being. None of us are debating that God didn't make animals.

It's on both sides. Evolutionists also often give half-truths and outright lies for their evidence. I don't rely on scientific evidence from either side; I rely on what I believe God is saying to me.

Like...? YEC consists 100% of half-truths and outright lies.

I accept that the universe may have been created billions of years ago, but I do not accept that life is older than a few thousand years. That, too, defies logic.

It defies logic since you're ignoring evidence of creation left by God in favor of your flawed interpretation of genesis.

The world considers it stupid, just as most of the world considers it stupid to devote oneself completely to God. Do you see how nuns and monks are often made fun of because they have devoted themselves 100% to God and nothing else? It's pretty much the same way with YECists.

Actually it's not. There is absolutely no science behind YEC, just dogma and lies.

Neither the Bible nor the Church endorse evolution. The Bible provides no evidence for evolution, and the Church simply tolerates the belief of evolution.

The bible is not a science book, so of course it doesn't have any evidence of evolution. On the other hand, there should be evidence on earth of YEC (in order to make it consistent with the bible), but there isn't any.

How is evolution used in modern science? It's not, unless you count microevolution, which is in no way related to macroevolution.

It's the basis of modern biology. Macroevolution is microevolution over a very long period of time, like billions of years.

I don't know what you're talking about with this Omphalos thing or with the drugs. I don't see the Bible condemning use of legal medicines anywhere. If you mean illegal drugs, then of course they are evil and should not be used by anyone.

Do those evil illegal drugs include plants made by God? Err...anyway, the omphalos hypothesis is a flawed line of reasoning often used by modern-day creationists and it essentially states that apparent age is an illusion.

Evolution is an atheistic ideal, and accepting it as fact (there is a difference between accepting it and considering it) isn't the right way to go.

Er, it's not quite atheistic, as evidenced by the multitude of christians who believe in it. I'd rather risk not going the right way (whatever that means), instead of making God a complete liar.

Seriously, does the Holy Spirit tell you, "Evolution is true."? Because I think the Holy Spirit is telling me, "God created the world in six literal 24-hour days." I didn't mean that no one has heard God, I meant that probably, neither of us has definite proof that the Spirit spoke to us.

No, the Holy Spirit tells me "Use your brain, there's a reason I gave you logic." I do, and see a ridiculous amount of evidence that points away from YEC. Part of "using my brain" also includes using sound theology to conclude that God is not actively trying to deceive His followers.

The reason people think it concludes evolution is because they automatically dismiss evidence of creation because scientists claim they can refute it, when they really cannot.

I guess you're right by saying scientists can't refute it, because "seriously guys God did it" is a totally unfalsifiable view of creation, and therefore not even science.

The world doesn't like creationism because it's not "logical" to them since their teachers and professors have been completely one-sided on the issue of evolution, so it's a lot easier to believe in evolution.

I'm not sure about the world, but I can tell you that science doesn't like creationism because there is absolutely no evidence of it, as well as it being a totally non-scientific idea.

It doesn't seem to fit with the character of God, because He seems to like us to take the harder path. Evolution is clearly an easier path than creation.

I'd say that evolution is a much easier path, since there is so much information about it which God decided to scatter all over earth and around the universe. I'd also say that having a God whose book compliments the evidence he gave us is a more accurate character than a god who lies and actively deceives all his believers.

 

[gluadys]

Again, it weakens one's faith in God. What would be the point of making an entirely symbolic book? Even the book of Revelation, which is riddled with symbolism, isn't completely symbolic. The most important idea of Revelation, that Jesus will come back to earth, is literal.

No one here claims that the whole bible is symbolic. But there is a point in using symbolism, parables, legend and fiction. The point is that stories like these can be understood by all generations. Science wears out pretty fast. If biblical statements are pegged to a scientific world-view of any age, including our own, they are soon so outdated as to be of no use. But stories have staying power through history and across cultures in a way that cannot be emulated by other forms of communication. Telling stories is a part of basic human culture. Who knows, perhaps it is an expression of the image of God in us. We tell stories to each other because God tells stories to us. And while the particulars of the stories may be imaginary, the stories get embedded in our minds and memories and tell us the truths we need to know about God, ourselves and the world he put us in. These truths: God created heaven and earth and all things in them; God created an orderly world in an orderly fashion; God created humanity in God's own image; God set up a relationship of rule and care between humanity and the earth; humanity rebelled against God and fell from grace and communion with God; all of our relationships--with God, between man and woman, between humans and the earth, etc. have been distorted by the fall; we need to be liberated from the power of sin--we need redemption, atonement and reconciliation with our Creator. These are all literal truths. It doesn't matter that they are given to us in a non-literal format.

But theistic evolutionists, at least those who believe in the Big Bang, do not believe that God created earth. They believe that He simply allowed it to be created.

So what's the difference? If God created the big bang with the intention that one consequence was the creation of the earth, how is that not creating the earth?

Why? And again, need I remind you, the entire idea of God disagrees with the "evidence"?

No way. That is just not so. Remember the physical evidence was created by God. How could it possibly disagree with its Maker? There is no need to pick and choose. All truth is God's truth.

God does not MAKE good people get brutally murdered or GIVE people cancer. He ALLOWS these things to happen as tests of faith.

There is a huge difference between these kinds of tests and saying that God tests people's faith by actually lying to them.

The same applies for the fossil record. Again, since these creation-evolution debates based on scientific evidence normally just go in circles, I won't get into it, but there is controversy over the fossil record because there are few transitional fossils, and none of them have been undeniably proven. Many of the "transitional" fossils shown to the public have been exposed as outright lies. I think that God has simply allowed the controversy as a test of faith. The dating methods scientists use are also quite assumption-riddled.

The only controversies are among lay-people who do not have knowledge of the evidence or a background in evaluating it. There is no scientific controversy about the age of the earth or evolution.

How is evolution used in modern science? It's not, unless you count microevolution, which is in no way related to macroevolution.

Microevolution is the cause of macroevolution; macroevolution is the effect of microevolution in isolated populations. They are certainly connected because a single process underlies both.

Evolution is an atheistic ideal, and accepting it as fact (there is a difference between accepting it and considering it) isn't the right way to go.

Evolution is not an ideal. It is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is not a belief. Evolution is a scientific fact and a scientific theory. And that is all that it is. There is no more reason for a Christian to be concerned about evolution than there is to be concerned about relativity or gravity or any similar theory.

 

[gluadys]

I don't recall the Church writing anything that claimed to be infallible. I recall John, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude, James, and Moses writing things, but not the Church as a whole.

Do you think any of their writings would be part of the bible if the Church had not chosen them for preservation and study? What happened to all the writings circulating in the early church that were not approved by the Church as a whole?

As for the actual writing being done by individuals, that is always the case. Do you think the Pope actually writes his own encyclicals? Yet when they are issued they are treated seriously as the voice of the Church, not of the person who did the actual writing.

Seriously, does the Holy Spirit tell you, "Evolution is true."?

Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. I believe that includes the truth that evolution happens and has happened.

Like what? Why would God say that the reptiles and birds were created, then the reptiles and mammals, if it were clearly not true? And according to "science", it is not.

This is rather unclear. I'll try to answer it if you can state the question more clearly.

Both of these stories had points. Jesus was telling us to help those in need and to forgive those who have sinned against you. What would God be telling us by saying that the world was created in six days (with evenings and mornings, clearly meaning they are regular days) if it were completely false? What would be the moral of that story?

Again, what is the moral of Genesis 1-2? Jesus' stories had points. I don't see how Genesis interpreted symbolically could have a point.

You really think that a story about the creation and the fall would have no point? See my preceding post.

The Bible clearly says it was global.

Not every Christian believes this is clearly stated in scripture.

That same scientific study simply goes in circles.

Only in the minds of creationists. Scientists have long moved past the point of finding evolution to be controversial.

Evolutionists and creationists both stretch their findings because they are all fallible.

Not true. Evolutionary scientists have no need to "stretch their findings".

The scientific debate leads to no conclusions.

Not true. It has led to conclusions. That is why there is no debate in science any more on the basic facts and mechanisms of evolution. Yes, there is lots of debate on the details because many are not well known yet. But no debate at all that evolution occurs today, has occurred in the past, and that all living species are related through common ancestry--including humans.

The reason people think it concludes evolution is because they automatically dismiss evidence of creation

The evidence for evolution is the evidence for creation because evolution is, from all that we can see, God's chosen method of creation. There is no evidence for the creation of species apart from evolution.

because scientists claim they can refute it

A very few militant atheists make this claim. Most scientists don't. The scientific consensus does not. The few scientists that do are overstepping the bounds of science and misusing science to support their philosophy. But it makes no more sense to attack science because some people abuse it than to attack Christianity because some people abuse it.

Christians will suffer persecution for their beliefs, Jesus said.

I think you had better re-check the scriptures. Jesus spoke of his followers being persecuted because they followed him. Not because they disputed a scientific theory. Especially if they did so out of ignorance.

so it's a lot easier to believe in evolution.

Evolution is not a belief, so it does not require faith. Anyone who supports evolution because they believe in it is showing as much ignorance of evolution as those who oppose it.

It's not that you hold humans' beliefs above the Word of God, it's that you interpret ATHEISTIC beliefs above CHRISTIAN beliefs.

I interpret scientific conclusions, not atheistic beliefs.

No one ever suggested a non-literal interpretation for Genesis until ATHEIST Charles Darwin came along, and other ATHEISTS backed up his work, and ATHEISTS set up the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Not true on all counts. Some atheists may have backed Darwin's work, but they were not the only ones. He also had fervent Christians like Asa Gray who supported him. Darwin himself was not an atheist most of his life, including the time of his first publication of Origin of Species.

Most importantly it is not true that non-literal interpretations of Genesis were not thought of until the 19th century. Some Christians have suggested non-literal interpretations since at least the 2nd century. St. Augustine of Hippo wrote a whole book on why Genesis ought not to be interpreted literally. Vance can give you a more detailed account of ancient Christians who agreed with St. Augustine on this point.

Again, Romans 5:12 says it all. There is no reason Paul should say that sin entered the world because of Adam if Adam didn't exist.

But I believe that Adam does exist and that Paul was quite right.

 

[shernren]

It is okay to believe in Old-Earth Creation, which seems to be what Pius is referring to here, because with theistic evolution, God does not create human souls, they just evolve from apes.

No, that's why it's called theistic evolution. I do believe more or less in it. I believe that God used evolution to create nature and its fauna and flora, then performed the special creation of man. I also believe that Genesis 3 is very likely historical. Since evolution was conceived by God, couldn't God have stepped in at any point and breathed the humanity into the pre-human? I don't see any contradiction with theology here.

Symbolism just doesn't make sense. What symbolic interpretation is there for, "God created the fish of the sea and fowl of the air?"

On day 2, God created the seas and the air.
On day 5, God created the fish to fill the seas, and the birds to fill the air.

I can gain a lot of "symbolic interpretation" from this:
1. God is an orderly God, not a god of havoc or for chaos like in other religions.
2. Since the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, no matter how wonderful, are still created beings, we cannot worship them as we worship the Creator.
3. God has a purpose for creation. He created the seas for the purpose of being filled with fish and the skies for the purpose of being filled with birds. Therefore He also has a purpose for my life.

All this forms a part of how I view the world around me, whether or not the Creation story is an actual historical account. This is the typical mindset of the Easterner and it would do well to respect that mindset you would have found in the audience of the Bible.

It's on both sides. Evolutionists also often give half-truths and outright lies for their evidence. I don't rely on scientific evidence from either side; I rely on what I believe God is saying to me.

Do you get anointed with oil when you wake up with a flu? And I find that while evolutionists do misrepresent the other side, it doesn't happen too often, and it is corrected within the community. Whereas when creationists go on an evolutionist witch-hunt ...

Again, it weakens one's faith in God. What would be the point of making an entirely symbolic book? Even the book of Revelation, which is riddled with symbolism, isn't completely symbolic. The most important idea of Revelation, that Jesus will come back to earth, is literal. As so, the most important idea of Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth, is also literal. But theistic evolutionists, at least those who believe in the Big Bang, do not believe that God created earth. They believe that He simply allowed it to be created.

The most important idea of Genesis 1, that the whole universe was created by God and is therefore under His dominion and power, is literal. We do believe that God did not have to directly intervene to take responsibility for creating the earth, and therefore having dominion over it.

When a married couple has sex and has a baby, did God create the baby? Not directly. Then why do we say that "children are a gift from the Lord"? For the same reason: God planned it and used natural agencies to bring it to pass. God does not have to violate matter-energy conservation every time a baby enters the world!

Also, unlike Revelation, there is nothing that implies Genesis is symbolic. Every time I can recall that the Bible uses symbolism, someone either a) saw it in a vision; or b) is hearing/telling a parable. Genesis is neither.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
Read and understand.
And by the way, look more closely at the parables. Half the time (probably more often) Jesus starts with "There was..." He does not assume that it is just a story, He does not give us any reason for us to assume so either. And yet we know from culture and history that to suppose an event like the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan actually happened would have meant pretty much the disintegration of the Jewish culture. So was Jesus lying when He started a fully fictional story with "There was..."? No - it is important to understand that with the audience of that time there was no such question. They didn't know how to ask "Is that a literal, historical proceeding; or is it a convenient fairy-tale to teach us something?" ...for them the truth of the principle validated the story, and the story became something true within their framework of how they viewed the world as a way of knowing the principle, whether or not the underlying story was actually a historically real thing in and of itself.

Why? And again, need I remind you, the entire idea of God disagrees with the "evidence"? Why pick and choose? I accept that the universe may have been created billions of years ago, but I do not accept that life is older than a few thousand years. That, too, defies logic.

If you accept that the universe may have been created billions of years ago, you have no further reason to believe YEC theories.

And hold up, weren't you the one lecturing me to have enough humility to say that my interpretation of Genesis may be wrong? I do not see you providing any Scriptural evidence to back your idea up.

[BIBLE]Romans 1:20[/BIBLE]
This verse (and many others) asserts that the evidence of God displayed in the natural world is sufficient to convert people. Now think about it: if the evidence of nature is sufficient to bring people to God (so that no-one can say he doesn't know God), doesn't that say something about the veracity of the witness that nature itself provides concerning God's creation and His methods?

The world considers it stupid, just as most of the world considers it stupid to devote oneself completely to God. Do you see how nuns and monks are often made fun of because they have devoted themselves 100% to God and nothing else? It's pretty much the same way with YECists.

It's your culture. Where I come from we respect such people (unless they're abusing children). And I still dislike YECism.

We have to differentiate between the hate we will face in association with Jesus and the hate we often create simply because of our misdoings. Modern science doesn't just disagree with Christian creationism, it disagrees with Muslim creationism, because it disagrees with creationism whether it "comes from God" or not. Saying YECism is hated because the world hates Christian beliefs is like saying the Crusades were wrong only because the world hates Christian action.

What's wrong with that first sentence? If a bunch of scientists came up saying they had evidence that disproved God, assuming they actually produced convincing evidence (which is impossible, but work with me here), would you believe them? Of course not. Why? Because God needs no evidence.

Oh dear. Don't get me started on the relationship between God and science. God by definition is beyond science. Science by definition is too small for God, or even to completely understand a single miracle.

Which of course makes the "scientific" thrust of YECism very, very suspect.

Neither the Bible nor the Church endorse evolution. The Bible provides no evidence for evolution, and the Church simply tolerates the belief of evolution. Neither endorses it.

The Bible provides no evidence for quantum theory. But the computer in front of you is running perfectly fine, no?

God does not MAKE good people get brutally murdered or GIVE people cancer. He ALLOWS these things to happen as tests of faith. The same applies for the fossil record. Again, since these creation-evolution debates based on scientific evidence normally just go in circles, I won't get into it, but there is controversy over the fossil record because there are few transitional fossils, and none of them have been undeniably proven. Many of the "transitional" fossils shown to the public have been exposed as outright lies. I think that God has simply allowed the controversy as a test of faith. The dating methods scientists use are also quite assumption-riddled.

But isn't your doctor assumption-riddled as well? After all, when he gives you medicine for your cold, he's assuming that your body won't react allergically, that your cold is caused by known rhinoviruses instead of a malicious microbe from outer-space, and that your cold should be cured by giving you medicine to counter its effects instead of drilling a hole into your head to let the evil spirits out. (Which actually did work for those poor primitives, it seems, once in a long long long while. )

Science has nothing to be ashamed of for relying on proven assumptions. In the same vein, YECism has a lot to be ashamed of for relying on unproven assumptions, notably the assumption that all assumptions they aren't assuming should not be assumed!

How is evolution used in modern science? It's not, unless you count microevolution, which is in no way related to macroevolution.

Taxonomy, ecology, genetics, microbiology, zoology, botany, conservation science, paleobiology, archeology. That's about it, really.

I don't know what you're talking about with this Omphalos thing or with the drugs. I don't see the Bible condemning use of legal medicines anywhere. If you mean illegal drugs, then of course they are evil and should not be used by anyone. I base my thinking off what I believe God is saying to me, not what humans are saying to me.

Now, what you believe God is saying to you, may not actually be what God really wants to say to you. I know that and how it feels.

Evolution is an atheistic ideal, and accepting it as fact (there is a difference between accepting it and considering it) isn't the right way to go.

Oh dear. I'm an atheist! How did I end up in the Christians-only Origins forum?