Theistic evolution: Why it doesn't work with Scripture

[Dark_Lite]

Humani Generis, Section 36 (From papalencyclicals.net):

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful.

Does not forbid the teaching of evolution as long as we believe that souls were specially created by God.

 

[Vance]

The entire OP begs the question of what God actually says in His Scripture. It starts with the premise that Scripture says, without doubt, the YEC intepretation of that Scripture. Since I find this premise entirely wrong, everything after that is based on a false premise.

 

[cds113089]

The problem with believing evolution and Christianity is this:

Atheistic evolution= Matter + random chance + necessity + mutation + natural selection + isolation + death + very long time periods.

Theistic evolution= Matter + random chance + necessity + mutation + natural selection + isolation + death + very long time periods + God.

Evolution was invented by atheists and supported by atheists at its start. Evolution is an attempt to explain how life could have become the way it is today NATURALLY. God is not necessary in the evolutionary theory. He's just an addition, an afterthought. Evolutionary scientists try their best to explain how things could have happened naturally and do not take God into consideration.

From christiananswers.net, here are the 10 dangers (paraphrased) of theistic evolution:

1. Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:17). John 4:16, 1:5, and 1:1-2 says that God is love, light, and life. God's work is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution requires death, bloodshed, suffering, and imperfection from the beginning of time. The Bible makes it clear that originally, earth was a paradise. Not so according to theistic evolutionists. According to them, it was always a war zone.

2. God becomes a "God of the Gaps"

God is the Prime Cause of all things. This is made clear in 1 Corinthians 8:6. But theistic evolutionists don't need God to be the center of all things. Throughout time, He is just there, not at all crucial to life's formation and barely having done anything but get it started. In theistic evolution the only things God is credited with are the things that evolutionists have yet to explain.

3. Denial of central Biblical teachings

The Bible is the infallible source of truth authored by God Himself (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament leading up to the New Testament (John 5:39). Here are four main reasons why the Genesis account should be taken literally.

-Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts throughout the Bible are given in the form of facts, not symbolic representations.
-In the Ten Commandments, God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same timespan described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
-In the New Testament Jesus referred to the facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
-Nothing in the Bible indicates that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

Theistic evolutionists, in fact, undermine the Bible. In other words, they say, "If what the Bible says doesn't agree with what a person smarter than me says, it must not be literal [regardless of the person's faith and bias against the Bible]."

If one reduces the Genesis account to a myth, what should keep them from reducing the entire Bible to a myth? Do they conveniently pick and choose what they think is real, making a bible to suit themselves?

4. Loss of the Way for finding God

The Bible says that man was completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek Jesus Christ who "came to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10)

Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose in relation to God. Sin is made unclear, open to interpretation, and meaningless. Many gray areas come up on the moral scale. The Holy Spirit clearly declares sin to be, well, sinful. It's black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Evolutionists don't think that sin ever caused man to fall, it just happened without any real consequences. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding God to the evolutionary scenario.

5. The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is undermined

The incarnation of God through His son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Christ Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionists Hoimar von Difurth talks about the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: "Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review ... of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God ... "

6. The Biblical basis of Jesus' work for redemption is mythologized

The Bible teaches that Adam's sin was a real event and was the direct and sole cause of sin in the world in Romans 5:12.

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, and completely overrules Genesis 2:17, that Adam was created directly from the dust of the ground. But in Romans 5:16-18, the sinner Adam and the Savior Jesus are linked together. Any view that mythologizes Adam's sin undermines Jesus' sacrifice.

7. Loss of Biblical chronology

The Bible provides us with a clear time-scale for history.

-The timescale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning (Genesis 1:1) and there will be a moment when time will be no more (Matthew 24:14).
-The total duration of creation was SIX DAYS (Exodus 20:11).
-The age of the universe may be estimated by the genealogies recorded in the Bible. It cannot be calculated exactly, but it is clear that it is the order of several thousand years, not billions.
-Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His son." This happened about 2,000 years ago.
-The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution/progressive creation disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of atheistic evolutionist time-scales for which there are no convincing physical grounds. This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the Second Coming of Jesus Christ may be lost.

8. Loss of Creation concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught clearly in the Bible, including:
-God created matter without using any available material. In other words, He created stuff from nothing.
-God created space and the earth first, then the atmosphere, then the seas and dry land, then the plants, then appointed the sun and moon to rule the day and night, then created the stars and planets (since they resemble stars at first glance God probably also meant the planets when He mentioned the stars). He then created the fish and the birds, the wild animals and "creeping things" (definitely reptiles like snakes and lizards and also possibly insects) IN THAT ORDER. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of "cosmic evolution" and the Big Bang.

Theistic evolution completely disregards the Bible. The theistic evolutionists say, "The world says it's not true, so it must not be true."

9. Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative--whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of science.

Evolutionists brush all this aside. Evolutionist (an atheist--what a shock!) Richard Dawkins says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants." Dawkins rejects the entire Bible with this same sort of thinking. So what is it? Will you agree with Dawkins only on Genesis, or on the whole Bible?

10. Missing the Purpose

No other historical book gives us so many valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. Some examples:
1. Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28)
2. Man is the purpose of God's plan of salvation (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of man having any purpose is ridiculous to atheistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists basically try to reconcile purposefulness with non-purposefulness, which makes no sense.

CONCLUSION

Creation and evolution are so divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists try to integrate the two doctrines, but this reduces the Bible to insignificance and a book not to be taken very seriously. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The problem with believing evolution and Christianity is this:

Atheistic evolution= Matter + random chance + necessity + mutation + natural selection + isolation + death + very long time periods.

Theistic evolution= Matter + random chance + necessity + mutation + natural selection + isolation + death + very long time periods + God.

Evolution was invented by atheists and supported by atheists at its start. Evolution is an attempt to explain how life could have become the way it is today NATURALLY. God is not necessary in the evolutionary theory. He's just an addition, an afterthought. Evolutionary scientists try their best to explain how things could have happened naturally and do not take God into consideration.

Pretty big assumption there. Did you know the majority of scientists in the USA are Christian? Science does not bring God into the picture because it CANNOT TEST THE SUPERNATURAL.

From christiananswers.net, here are the 10 dangers (paraphrased) of theistic evolution:

Personally I think Creationism is more dangerous.

1. Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:17). John 4:16, 1:5, and 1:1-2 says that God is love, light, and life. God's work is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution requires death, bloodshed, suffering, and imperfection from the beginning of time. The Bible makes it clear that originally, earth was a paradise. Not so according to theistic evolutionists. According to them, it was always a war zone.

The "death" that took place at the fall was a spiritual one. Physical death of souless animals still existed. It always has existed. The carnivores killed for meat. This is the way God created. They didn't magically become carnivores after the fall. The difference between before and after the fall is: No sin vs. sin.

2. God becomes a "God of the Gaps"

God is the Prime Cause of all things. This is made clear in 1 Corinthians 8:6. But theistic evolutionists don't need God to be the center of all things. Throughout time, He is just there, not at all crucial to life's formation and barely having done anything but get it started. In theistic evolution the only things God is credited with are the things that evolutionists have yet to explain.

This is a misrepresentation and a lie of what TEs believe. Without God, nothing would be here. God is credited with the creation of this entire universe. He is not just "there." God is active in his Creation and in his faithful Church.

3. Denial of central Biblical teachings

The Bible is the infallible source of truth authored by God Himself (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament leading up to the New Testament (John 5:39).

No one here disagrees that the Bible is infallible. It wasn't authored by God himself. It was inspired by God though. He didn't actually write the scriptures. People did.

Here are four main reasons why the Genesis account should be taken literally.

Maybe to a literalist.

-Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts throughout the Bible are given in the form of facts, not symbolic representations.

The Bible is not a science book.

-In the Ten Commandments, God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same timespan described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

And this makes Genesis literal how? The seven days can still be an image/poetic device used to do support this passage. This is a weak point this website has made here.

-In the New Testament Jesus referred to the facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

Because I'm sure the Jews would understand modern-day biology...

-Nothing in the Bible indicates that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

Prove it.

Theistic evolutionists, in fact, undermine the Bible. In other words, they say, "If what the Bible says doesn't agree with what a person smarter than me says, it must not be literal [regardless of the person's faith and bias against the Bible]."

Once again this article is misrepresenting theistic evolution. We look to make sure that God's written revelation and God's creation agree. This is something creationists (Especially YECists) do not do. Rather they attempt to deny reality to fit the world into their literalist intepretation. This can be dangerous thinking.

If one reduces the Genesis account to a myth, what should keep them from reducing the entire Bible to a myth? Do they conveniently pick and choose what they think is real, making a bible to suit themselves?

Slippery slope.

4. Loss of the Way for finding God

The Bible says that man was completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek Jesus Christ who "came to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10)

Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose in relation to God. Sin is made unclear, open to interpretation, and meaningless. Many gray areas come up on the moral scale. The Holy Spirit clearly declares sin to be, well, sinful. It's black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Evolutionists don't think that sin ever caused man to fall, it just happened without any real consequences. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding God to the evolutionary scenario.

This is a funny point. They're saying "These people don't agree with our literal interpretation of the first chapter of one book in the Bible, therefore we can extrapolate it to all this nonsense we're compiling here!"

Evolution in no way undermines the need for a savior or repentence from sin. The entire bolded part is a pure lie. Any Christian theistic evolutionist that holds orthodox views of the Faith will believe in the fall (whether literal or symbolic) and a "non-gray" moral scale.

5. The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is undermined

The incarnation of God through His son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Christ Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionists Hoimar von Difurth talks about the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: "Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review ... of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God ... "

Har. They don't even have their own argument this time (Although the rest of them are pathetic attempts anyway). What one man says about evolution and Christianity has no bearing on the truth of the matter--which is not what this man says. The quote was probably quoted horridly out of context anyway. You know a lot of creationists do that right?

6. The Biblical basis of Jesus' work for redemption is mythologized

The Bible teaches that Adam's sin was a real event and was the direct and sole cause of sin in the world in Romans 5:12.

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, and completely overrules Genesis 2:17, that Adam was created directly from the dust of the ground. But in Romans 5:16-18, the sinner Adam and the Savior Jesus are linked together. Any view that mythologizes Adam's sin undermines Jesus' sacrifice.

Once again they paint with too broad a brush, then they extrapolate the supposed problem. This time they finish it up with an unsupported assertion.

7. Loss of Biblical chronology

The Bible provides us with a clear time-scale for history.

-The timescale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning (Genesis 1:1) and there will be a moment when time will be no more (Matthew 24:14).
-The total duration of creation was SIX DAYS (Exodus 20:11).
-The age of the universe may be estimated by the genealogies recorded in the Bible. It cannot be calculated exactly, but it is clear that it is the order of several thousand years, not billions.
-Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His son." This happened about 2,000 years ago.
-The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution/progressive creation disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of atheistic evolutionist time-scales for which there are no convincing physical grounds. This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the Second Coming of Jesus Christ may be lost.

I think all of the arguments since "point" five have been taking a generalized theistic evolution belief, extrapolating it to something completely unrelated, and then spurting off lies about the belief system as a whole. There is no loss of Biblical Chronology with theistic evolution. Just because the world is over 6,000 years old means nothing. The time of Jesus and the beginning of the world are two completely different things.

8. Loss of Creation concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught clearly in the Bible, including:
-God created matter without using any available material. In other words, He created stuff from nothing.

He placed the singularity point of the Big Bang into space and set it off. Well that's another "problem" solved.

-God created space and the earth first, then the atmosphere, then the seas and dry land, then the plants, then appointed the sun and moon to rule the day and night, then created the stars and planets (since they resemble stars at first glance God probably also meant the planets when He mentioned the stars). He then created the fish and the birds, the wild animals and "creeping things" (definitely reptiles like snakes and lizards and also possibly insects) IN THAT ORDER. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of "cosmic evolution" and the Big Bang.

When since is this a salvation issue. The Jews wrote it down as they thought. God gave it [The beginning of Genesis] to the Jews in poem form.

Theistic evolution completely disregards the Bible. The theistic evolutionists say, "The world says it's not true, so it must not be true."

That's a bold-faced lie and I'm sure you can acknowledge that. ....Maybe.

9. Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative--whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of science.

Evolutionists brush all this aside. Evolutionist (an atheist--what a shock!) Richard Dawkins says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants." Dawkins rejects the entire Bible with this same sort of thinking. So what is it? Will you agree with Dawkins only on Genesis, or on the whole Bible?

If ANYTHING misrepresents reality, it is young earth creationism. I have honestly never seen such a denial of reality in my life until I came across YECism. Also, by now you know that evolution != atheism and that selected, out-of-context quotes mean nothing.

10. Missing the Purpose

No other historical book gives us so many valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. Some examples:
1. Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28)
2. Man is the purpose of God's plan of salvation (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of man having any purpose is ridiculous to atheistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists basically try to reconcile purposefulness with non-purposefulness, which makes no sense.

The first sentence after the numbered list is an unsupported assertion. The second follows off this unsupported statement and thus makes the entire argument logically false until it is supported with evidence--of which they have none.

CONCLUSION

Creation and evolution are so divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists try to integrate the two doctrines, but this reduces the Bible to insignificance and a book not to be taken very seriously. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

Conclusion: The people that wrote this list have A) no idea what theistic evolutionists really believe, B) extrapolate way too much, and C) lie quite a bit.


Also, care to address Humani Generis? It is acceptable under Catholic teaching to subscribe to evolution.

 

[Delta One]

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.

Your assuming that your interpretation of the scientific evidence. As I have explained many, many, many, etc, etc, times before, the evidence doesn't speak for itself. It must be interpreted by scientists or people to come to conclusions about its origin. Like all cases, there are usually more than one reasonable explaination or interpretation. You're only looking at and believing in the evolutionary interpretation.

The fossils can be easily explained through the processes that would have went on during the Great Flood as recorded in Genesis. The red shift and CMB - two evidences from astronomy can be easily explained by Dr Humphreys who uses a Biblical basis for his work. The reason why radiometric dating methods always (usually) give old age dates is because of the assumptions that are involved, such as assuming that the decay rate has been constant and assuming how much daughter element there was in the first place. Change these and the other assumptions, you get a different date.

You appear to be confused about the science that deals with stuff in the present, and the science that deals with stuff from the distant unobservable and untestable past as you appear to hold them in the same place. This is unfortunate, as many people see the great discoveries and advances that process science makes (i.e. science that deals with stuff in the present) and they for some reason, think that historical sciecne (i.e. science that deals with stuff in the past) carry the same weight. In actual fact, historical science involves a lot of assumptions - that are usually affected by what the scientist initially believes to be true - to fill the ever present gaps and unknowns that constant appear. Also, the experiments that can be done that relate to the past are quite limited and also involve assumptions as we were not there and do not know the circumstances and varriables of that time.

There are many evidences consistent with a young universe/young earth that fit in perfectly with what God has to say through His Word. Of course, God could have created using evolution had He been so sadistic to do so, but He created how He said He did as revealed only through the Bible. Nature only shows us God's creative ingenious mind and His power -- it does NOT tell us how He created everything. Only the Bible, His Word, can -- why not believe it?

 

[Delta One]

Dark_Lite,

Pretty big assumption there. Did you know the majority of scientists in the USA are Christian? Science does not bring God into the picture because it CANNOT TEST THE SUPERNATURAL.

Calls to common opinion are fallible as history shows. The majority of scientists believed that the earth was flat, they also believed in the idea of geocentrism. Does that make it true? No way, as shown above - your argument is one of the weakest arguments that you could have used and actually, once analyzed goes against your position.

But science cannot TEST EVENTS FROM THE DISTANT UNOBSERVABLE AND UNREPEATABLE PAST EITHER -- yet you believe that their interpretation, i.e. evolutionism, is true. Your argument works against you. Btw, the CAPITAL letters are not in such a manner to be shouting.

Personally I think Creationism is more dangerous.

Only because you don't understand the evidence and how it has multiple interpretations and that science, is very limited when it comes to dealing with the past and often require quite a lot of assumptions to fill the ever present holes that come up.

I have to be going now, so I'll respond

 

[gluadys]

The problem with believing evolution and Christianity is this:

Atheistic evolution= Matter + random chance + necessity + mutation + natural selection + isolation + death + very long time periods.

Theistic evolution= Matter + random chance + necessity + mutation + natural selection + isolation + death + very long time periods + God.

There is only one theory of evolution today and neither of above is an accurate description of it. Theists and atheists do not subscribe to different theories of evolution. But they do have different theological views about God.

Evolution was invented by atheists and supported by atheists at its start.

This is an outright lie as the briefest study of history would show.

Evolution is an attempt to explain how life could have become the way it is today NATURALLY.

Let's be clear that we are speaking of biological life here. Evolution says nothing for example of spiritual life.

God is not necessary in the evolutionary theory.

Just as God is not necessary to the theory of gravity either, or to the explanation of lightning bolts. Why do you want the theory of evolution to explain everything instead of just science?

He's just an addition, an afterthought. Evolutionary scientists try their best to explain how things could have happened naturally and do not take God into consideration.

To a theist God is never an afterthought, and the whole point of theistic evolution is to take God into account.

From christiananswers.net, here are the 10 dangers (paraphrased) of theistic evolution:

1. Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:17). John 4:16, 1:5, and 1:1-2 says that God is love, light, and life. God's work is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution requires death, bloodshed, suffering, and imperfection from the beginning of time. The Bible makes it clear that originally, earth was a paradise. Not so according to theistic evolutionists. According to them, it was always a war zone.

Misrepresentation of evolution as a "war zone". When was the last time you saw daisies attacking each other?

2. God becomes a "God of the Gaps"

God is the Prime Cause of all things. This is made clear in 1 Corinthians 8:6. But theistic evolutionists don't need God to be the center of all things. Throughout time, He is just there, not at all crucial to life's formation and barely having done anything but get it started. In theistic evolution the only things God is credited with are the things that evolutionists have yet to explain.

The basic reason I subscribe to theistic evolution is that it is the precise opposite of God of the Gaps. I agree wholly with this 19th century TE:

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.​

3. Denial of central Biblical teachings

The Bible is the infallible source of truth authored by God Himself (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament leading up to the New Testament (John 5:39). Here are four main reasons why the Genesis account should be taken literally.

-Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts throughout the Bible are given in the form of facts, not symbolic representations.
-In the Ten Commandments, God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same timespan described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
-In the New Testament Jesus referred to the facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
-Nothing in the Bible indicates that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

Theistic evolutionists, in fact, undermine the Bible. In other words, they say, "If what the Bible says doesn't agree with what a person smarter than me says, it must not be literal [regardless of the person's faith and bias against the Bible]."

If one reduces the Genesis account to a myth, what should keep them from reducing the entire Bible to a myth? Do they conveniently pick and choose what they think is real, making a bible to suit themselves?

By the rules of this board, the Nicene Creed sets out the essential beliefs of the Christian faith. None of these are set aside by TEs.

What is meant by "reducing" the Genesis account to a myth? What makes a myth any less valuable than a poem or a parable or a history as a way of revelation? What makes the truth of a myth any less real than the truth of a literal event?

As for considering the whole bible a myth, that would not be a true reflection of the variety of literary genres in the bible. Parable is not myth, law is not myth, apocalypse is not myth, exhortation is not myth, history is not myth, and we have all these and other genres still in the bible.

4. Loss of the Way for finding God

The Bible says that man was completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek Jesus Christ who "came to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10)

Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose in relation to God. Sin is made unclear, open to interpretation, and meaningless. Many gray areas come up on the moral scale. The Holy Spirit clearly declares sin to be, well, sinful. It's black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Evolutionists don't think that sin ever caused man to fall, it just happened without any real consequences. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding God to the evolutionary scenario.

Evolution knows nothing about sin because it is science not theology. Again you are blaming evolution for not being something it was never intended to be. Science (including evolution) does not speak about sin, because it is incompetent to speak about sin. Asking it to frame a theology of sin is like asking a carpenter to do dental surgery.

5. The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is undermined

The incarnation of God through His son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Christ Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionists Hoimar von Difurth talks about the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: "Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review ... of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God ... "

Again, evolution is science not theology. Why do you expect science to teach about the incarnation?

6. The Biblical basis of Jesus' work for redemption is mythologized

The Bible teaches that Adam's sin was a real event and was the direct and sole cause of sin in the world in Romans 5:12.

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, and completely overrules Genesis 2:17, that Adam was created directly from the dust of the ground. But in Romans 5:16-18, the sinner Adam and the Savior Jesus are linked together. Any view that mythologizes Adam's sin undermines Jesus' sacrifice.

Do you take the word "mythologize" to mean "consider to be false"? That is not the literary or theological understanding of myth---though it is a common misunderstanding of what myth is.

Evolution says nothing about sin because it is science, not theology. See above.

7. Loss of Biblical chronology

The Bible provides us with a clear time-scale for history.

-The timescale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning (Genesis 1:1) and there will be a moment when time will be no more (Matthew 24:14).
-The total duration of creation was SIX DAYS (Exodus 20:11).
-The age of the universe may be estimated by the genealogies recorded in the Bible. It cannot be calculated exactly, but it is clear that it is the order of several thousand years, not billions.
-Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His son." This happened about 2,000 years ago.
-The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution/progressive creation disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of atheistic evolutionist time-scales for which there are no convincing physical grounds. This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the Second Coming of Jesus Christ may be lost.

All chronologies in respect to the bible are fallible human interpretations including the one devised by Bishop Ussher.

8. Loss of Creation concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught clearly in the Bible, including:
-God created matter without using any available material. In other words, He created stuff from nothing.
-God created space and the earth first, then the atmosphere, then the seas and dry land, then the plants, then appointed the sun and moon to rule the day and night, then created the stars and planets (since they resemble stars at first glance God probably also meant the planets when He mentioned the stars). He then created the fish and the birds, the wild animals and "creeping things" (definitely reptiles like snakes and lizards and also possibly insects) IN THAT ORDER. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of "cosmic evolution" and the Big Bang.

Theistic evolution completely disregards the Bible. The theistic evolutionists say, "The world says it's not true, so it must not be true."

The fundamental creation concept is "I believe in one God, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. TE is fully compatible with that belief. Finally, if the "world" which says something is true is the natural world God created, how could it be anything other than God's truth?

9. Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative--whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of science.

Evolutionists brush all this aside. Evolutionist (an atheist--what a shock!) Richard Dawkins says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants." Dawkins rejects the entire Bible with this same sort of thinking. So what is it? Will you agree with Dawkins only on Genesis, or on the whole Bible?

Well, what about other creation myths? What, other than faith, leads you to hold to the biblical account rather than the Navajo account? Christian TEs are in the same boat as creationists here. We have many ancient creation accounts to choose from. We choose to believe the biblical account because we have faith that it is the one inspired by God.

10. Missing the Purpose

No other historical book gives us so many valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. Some examples:
1. Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28)
2. Man is the purpose of God's plan of salvation (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of man having any purpose is ridiculous to atheistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists basically try to reconcile purposefulness with non-purposefulness, which makes no sense.

Evolution is science not theology. There is no discord between accepting science as a description of our history and accepting fundamental, biblically based theological statements about God's purpose in creating us.

CONCLUSION

Creation and evolution are so divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists try to integrate the two doctrines, but this reduces the Bible to insignificance and a book not to be taken very seriously. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

They are only divergent because creationists try to make evolution into a theology instead of letting it be what it is: a scientific theory about natural events. Stop trying to ascribe theological perspectives to something that cannot bear them and the problem of divergence melts away.

 

[Delta One]

As promised Dark_Lite, I'll finish what I started.

The "death" that took place at the fall was a spiritual one. Physical death of souless animals still existed. It always has existed. The carnivores killed for meat. This is the way God created. They didn't magically become carnivores after the fall. The difference between before and after the fall is: No sin vs. sin.

True, Adam and Eve did "die" spirtually; but they also died physically! The words "spirtual death" just refer to the disconnection of communication with God. If we read Romans 5 and 6, we can safely come to the conclusion that sin also resulted in physical death.

8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead [physical: this is intuitive], He cannot die again [physically because He conquered physical death when He rose again]; death no longer has mastery over Him. 10The [physical death is refered to -- see below about the punishment for sin] death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God.

Christ died physically on the cross. Therefore, if we die physically with Christ, we will also live physically with Him again. In Romans 9 we are told that the punnishment for sin is death. Before Jesus, lambs were killed (physically) as an atonment for our sin. Because "Adam's blood" does not run through animals, sacrifices of lambs were only a "cover" up for sin. God illustrates this to us in Genesis when He killed the lamb to clothe Adam and Eve, it was a "covering" for their sin.

God, however, knew that He would have to come up with a better plan. So He sent His perfect one and only Son to be the perfect sinless sacrifice (i.e. He sent Him to die physically) for us as an atonment for our sin. This is the whole message of the Gospel and is founded on the idea that Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world with no death and no sin before the Fall. Romans 15 supports this idea of death being the sacrfice for our sin:

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

Romans 5 and 6 both refer to physical death and spirtual death. The challange with this is trying to reason which one Paul is refering to.

This is a misrepresentation and a lie of what TEs believe. Without God, nothing would be here. God is credited with the creation of this entire universe. He is not just "there." God is active in his Creation and in his faithful Church.

You've just taken Genesis 1:1 literally. How ironic.


No one here disagrees that the Bible is infallible. It wasn't authored by God himself. It was inspired by God though. He didn't actually write the scriptures. People did.

He's Spirit moved them to write whatever He wanted them to. So, in other words, God basically "wrote" the Bible.

The Bible is not a science book.

You are correct in that it is not a science book - thank God for that because "science" changes all the time to conform with the facts, while the Bible has never changed and has always and most likely will always conform with the facts that we observe in nature. The Bible is God's revelation to mankind about mankind's relationship with Him and what He has done for us; while most of the Old Testament shows us the importance of Israel to Him and Jesus' line.

The Bible does, however, have many scientifically accurate verses, including several displayed in Job; Job 38:31 for example. Just ask if you want more.

Grrr, I have to go again other wise I'll be late for class. I'll hopefully finish this sometime later.

 

[Delta One]

gluadys,

Just quickly, you claim that much of what you read in the last post is either:
a. wrong.
b. lie.

It is interesting to note that you provide no reason as to where or why or even give any references to support your assertions -- or don't you have any?

 

[invisible trousers]

Your assuming that your interpretation of the scientific evidence. As I have explained many, many, many, etc, etc, times before, the evidence doesn't speak for itself. It must be interpreted by scientists or people to come to conclusions about its origin. Like all cases, there are usually more than one reasonable explaination or interpretation. You're only looking at and believing in the evolutionary interpretation.

Does this explain why YEC "interpretations" have contributed absolutely nothing to study of creation?

The red shift and CMB - two evidences from astronomy can be easily explained by Dr Humphreys who uses a Biblical basis for his work.

Rather than a scientific basis I see. His agenda is to further his beliefs, not actually look for scientifically correct information.

Your red shift claim has been debunked here, and if you venture further you'll find that every single argument you'll use has been debunked.

The reason why radiometric dating methods always (usually) give old age dates is because of the assumptions that are involved, such as assuming that the decay rate has been constant and assuming how much daughter element there was in the first place. Change these and the other assumptions, you get a different date.

Change these assumptions and the universe falls apart. If decay rates are not constant it means that fundamental constants of the universe--masses of neutrons, etc have changed. If those change then matter falls apart and the universe ceases to exist. Your unconstant decay rate argument has been debunked here.

You appear to be confused about the science that deals with stuff in the present, and the science that deals with stuff from the distant unobservable and untestable past as you appear to hold them in the same place...

Please provide actual evidence these sciences change. "Because I say so!" is not an appropriate response.

There are many evidences consistent with a young universe/young earth that fit in perfectly with what God has to say through His Word. Of course, God could have created using evolution had He been so sadistic to do so, but He created how He said He did as revealed only through the Bible. Nature only shows us God's creative ingenious mind and His power -- it does NOT tell us how He created everything. Only the Bible, His Word, can -- why not believe it?[/color]

But the problem there is not a single piece of evidence left by God in his creation that supports YEC. Nearly everything points to an old earth, universe, and evolution. This leads into the problem where...

Your interpretation of scripture makes God a liar.

Why would God leave a ridiculous amount of evidence of how He created the earth, given us brains and logic, but to only to have it contradict His word? That's nonsense! Our God is not in the business of deceiving His believers.

Oh, and yes I do believe the bible. None of the TE beliefs are incompatable with the bible, but they're certainly incompatable with YEC interpretations of scripture.

 

[shernren]

Oh dear. Such a wonderful concentration of misunderstandings.

1. Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible makes it clear that God is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:17). John 4:16, 1:5, and 1:1-2 says that God is love, light, and life. God's work is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution requires death, bloodshed, suffering, and imperfection from the beginning of time. The Bible makes it clear that originally, earth was a paradise. Not so according to theistic evolutionists. According to them, it was always a war zone.

And I can quote to you verses showing God changing His mind and dwelling in darkness. A lot of times what happens is YECs have an innate, sentimental, fuzzy pro-life feeling within which they believe that animal death is most probably wrong. Then they project these feelings onto God, believe that they feel the way they do because God inspires them to feel so through the Scripture, and wham - you have a conveniently heretical rebuttal of theistic evolution.

Very simply: if it is wrong for an animal to kill another, then it must be wrong for a human to kill an animal, and therefore wrong for God to kill an animal - and yet that was precisely what God did to provide Adam and Eve with animal skins. (Note this was before God gave the permission to Noah to eat meat.) So did God sin? O_O

And, would God create a world that would fall apart in animal overpopulation if there was no Fall? Is overpopulation perfect? This is being discussed on the thread here on death before the fall.

2. God becomes a "God of the Gaps"

God is the Prime Cause of all things. This is made clear in 1 Corinthians 8:6. But theistic evolutionists don't need God to be the center of all things. Throughout time, He is just there, not at all crucial to life's formation and barely having done anything but get it started. In theistic evolution the only things God is credited with are the things that evolutionists have yet to explain.

Do you cast out the demon of smallpox nowadays? Why are there only "demons of cancer" and not "demons of tuberculosis"? simply: we all worship our own "God of the Gaps". We pray over cancer because we can't control it, unlike flu and smallpox and tuberculosis which we can ostensibly cure. Do you thank God for every breath? For every raindrop? For the concrete science has produced for your buildings?

The "God of the Gaps" is not theistic evolution's fault. It is a basic figment of human pride which we all have to combat to learn to find God's presence in every situation. Besides, YECs have an even worse version of "God of the Gaps": they believe that God intervened during the creative act and then physically left the universe alone forever after that. You know how I know that? Because the moment you acknowledge that God may have intervened, you admit that your science is inadequate. So if YECs try to investigate scientifically, they are admitting also that they assume that God didn't intervene in whatever they're studying!

3. Denial of central Biblical teachings

The Bible is the infallible source of truth authored by God Himself (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament leading up to the New Testament (John 5:39). Here are four main reasons why the Genesis account should be taken literally.

-Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts throughout the Bible are given in the form of facts, not symbolic representations.
-In the Ten Commandments, God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same timespan described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
-In the New Testament Jesus referred to the facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
-Nothing in the Bible indicates that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

Theistic evolutionists, in fact, undermine the Bible. In other words, they say, "If what the Bible says doesn't agree with what a person smarter than me says, it must not be literal [regardless of the person's faith and bias against the Bible]."

If one reduces the Genesis account to a myth, what should keep them from reducing the entire Bible to a myth? Do they conveniently pick and choose what they think is real, making a bible to suit themselves?

Take the word "myth" and clean it of all those uncomfortable connotations such as "lie", "untruth", "rumor", "scandal", "urban legend" and you will find that a myth can be as much the truth as a history. Some "facts" in the Bible include pi equals 3 and bats are birds. Not everything true has to be factual: if you can't imagine that, at least make space for those who can. The reason the ten commandments quotes and Jesus' sayings go like that is because they were said within the cultural context of the Jews to whom the creation story was a convenient and powerful way of codifying their interactions with the world, whether or not it was an actual historical fact. If Jesus starts a parable by saying "There was..." is He a liar because the story never happened?

4. Loss of the Way for finding God

The Bible says that man was completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek Jesus Christ who "came to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10)

Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose in relation to God. Sin is made unclear, open to interpretation, and meaningless. Many gray areas come up on the moral scale. The Holy Spirit clearly declares sin to be, well, sinful. It's black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Evolutionists don't think that sin ever caused man to fall, it just happened without any real consequences. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding God to the evolutionary scenario.

5. The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is undermined

The incarnation of God through His son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Christ Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionists Hoimar von Difurth talks about the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: "Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review ... of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God ... "

6. The Biblical basis of Jesus' work for redemption is mythologized

The Bible teaches that Adam's sin was a real event and was the direct and sole cause of sin in the world in Romans 5:12.

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, and completely overrules Genesis 2:17, that Adam was created directly from the dust of the ground. But in Romans 5:16-18, the sinner Adam and the Savior Jesus are linked together. Any view that mythologizes Adam's sin undermines Jesus' sacrifice.

And of course, how convenient for YECs to ignore the significant proportion of TEs who can make room for a literal-historical Garden Fall. Since I'm one of those, these objections are invalid against me. I'll let others handle it.

7. Loss of Biblical chronology

The Bible provides us with a clear time-scale for history.

-The timescale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning (Genesis 1:1) and there will be a moment when time will be no more (Matthew 24:14).
-The total duration of creation was SIX DAYS (Exodus 20:11).
-The age of the universe may be estimated by the genealogies recorded in the Bible. It cannot be calculated exactly, but it is clear that it is the order of several thousand years, not billions.
-Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His son." This happened about 2,000 years ago.
-The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution/progressive creation disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of atheistic evolutionist time-scales for which there are no convincing physical grounds. This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the Second Coming of Jesus Christ may be lost.

If the Bible gives us a clear time-scale of history, why didn't it tell people when WWI and WWII, or the Reformation, or Sept/11, or the Dec 26 tsunami would happen? Aren't these important events too? And, theistic evolution doesn't assume that there is an infinite past and an infinite future. Theistic evolutionists who believe in the Big Bang believe that there was a definitive first moment into which the universe came into being by God's command through the Big Bang. And just because we are theistic evolutionists doesn't convince us in any way to abandon the idea of the Second Coming: you will find more Orthodox Christians being opposed to the doctrine of the literal millenium.

And "no convincing physical grounds"? My goodness, the physical grounds are exactly why we assume these time-scales!

8. Loss of Creation concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught clearly in the Bible, including:
-God created matter without using any available material. In other words, He created stuff from nothing.
-God created space and the earth first, then the atmosphere, then the seas and dry land, then the plants, then appointed the sun and moon to rule the day and night, then created the stars and planets (since they resemble stars at first glance God probably also meant the planets when He mentioned the stars). He then created the fish and the birds, the wild animals and "creeping things" (definitely reptiles like snakes and lizards and also possibly insects) IN THAT ORDER. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of "cosmic evolution" and the Big Bang.

Theistic evolution completely disregards the Bible. The theistic evolutionists say, "The world says it's not true, so it must not be true."

Saying that the main point of creation was to teach us all this stuff is like saying that the main point of the Prodigal Son is that we should throw feasts every time our children squander our inheritance and come home repentant! The real creation concepts are:

- that God created the universe
- that everything in the universe, being created by God, is under His authority and dominion and subject to His will
- that everything we see, being the created by God, can never deserve to be elevated to His status and thus should never be worshiped. Since the stars and the birds and the sun and moon are created they should never be worshiped as creator(s).
- that God created the universe with inherent order. This is the foundation of science, that nature has underlying structure instead of being fundamentally acausal, non/anti-deterministic and chaotically random. (Actually, evolution is nothing compared to quantum physics. That is the real threat to the Christian understanding of the world. There is a desperate need for the development of a Christian hermeneutic and interpretation towards quantum physics that will glorify God. But I digress.
- that God created the universe with purpose. This can be seen in the "tohu-bohu" face-off of themes in the Creation story, where
1st day: firmament created - 4th day: firmament filled with luminaries
2nd day: sky and water created - 5th day: sky and water filled with bird and fish
3rd day: land created - 6th day: land filled with beasts and man.

We do not lose these concepts whether or not the Creation story is non-historical.

10. Missing the Purpose

No other historical book gives us so many valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. Some examples:
1. Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28)
2. Man is the purpose of God's plan of salvation (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of man having any purpose is ridiculous to atheistic evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists basically try to reconcile purposefulness with non-purposefulness, which makes no sense.

The most direct way to refute this is to point out that many TEs still believe in the direct creation of man's soul. "Non-purposefulness"?

 

[shernren]

The fossils can be easily explained through the processes that would have went on during the Great Flood as recorded in Genesis. The red shift and CMB - two evidences from astronomy can be easily explained by Dr Humphreys who uses a Biblical basis for his work. The reason why radiometric dating methods always (usually) give old age dates is because of the assumptions that are involved, such as assuming that the decay rate has been constant and assuming how much daughter element there was in the first place. Change these and the other assumptions, you get a different date.

Oh dear, not radiometric dating again. Isochron radiometric dating has only two, completely provable assumptions:
1. The fundamental balance of quantum forces in the universe has held the same. Since any upset of the fundamental forces would make the universe very different from what it is now, we can assume that that ratio hasn't changed in our period of interest. Saying that "The quantum forces haven't changed, because the universe is still around" is just as valid as saying "I know you didn't shave yesterday, because I can see a beard that reaches to your knees".
2. When rocks incorporate elements, there is very, very, very little isotopic differentiation. Which has been experimentally seen.

Change these two assumptions, and you don't get a different date: you get a different universe, and one in which God creates natural laws and then abandons them. Which goes against His character.

You appear to be confused about the science that deals with stuff in the present, and the science that deals with stuff from the distant unobservable and untestable past as you appear to hold them in the same place. This is unfortunate, as many people see the great discoveries and advances that process science makes (i.e. science that deals with stuff in the present) and they for some reason, think that historical sciecne (i.e. science that deals with stuff in the past) carry the same weight. In actual fact, historical science involves a lot of assumptions - that are usually affected by what the scientist initially believes to be true - to fill the ever present gaps and unknowns that constant appear. Also, the experiments that can be done that relate to the past are quite limited and also involve assumptions as we were not there and do not know the circumstances and varriables of that time.

Can you rigorously define "the present"? Because the present is something that happened a microsecond ago which your brain has just finished processing. Since everything you experience is actually the past, and since the past involves a lot of "assumptions to fill the ever present gaps and unknowns that constantly appear", how do you know that you are experiencing anything that is actually real?

So you see that insisting on a persistent and rigorous dichotomy between the knowledge of the present and the past is not Christian - it is, again, ruthless Hinduism.

There are many evidences consistent with a young universe/young earth that fit in perfectly with what God has to say through His Word. Of course, God could have created using evolution had He been so sadistic to do so, but He created how He said He did as revealed only through the Bible. Nature only shows us God's creative ingenious mind and His power -- it does NOT tell us how He created everything. Only the Bible, His Word, can -- why not believe it? (emphasis added)

Oh dear! If you wanted to know how old a car is, would you check the car itself, or read the operating manual? Why would evolution be sadistic? Isn't a flood sadistic too? And what evidences are consistent with a young universe/earth that aren't more consistent with an old universe/earth?

But science cannot TEST EVENTS FROM THE DISTANT UNOBSERVABLE AND UNREPEATABLE PAST EITHER -- yet you believe that their interpretation, i.e. evolutionism, is true. Your argument works against you. Btw, the CAPITAL letters are not in such a manner to be shouting.

Are you sure you ate your breakfast this morning? How can we know?

 

[gluadys]

gluadys,

Just quickly, you claim that much of what you read in the last post is either:
a. wrong.
b. lie.

It is interesting to note that you provide no reason as to where or why or even give any references to support your assertions -- or don't you have any?

Partly I was being brief because the response was really to a cut-and-paste, not to the poster. Also, I don't feel obligated to provide references in response to a poster or article who does not. For example where does cds113089 support his contention that evolution was invented by atheists? Where does the article from christiananswers reference such statements as
"theistic evolutionists don't need God to be the center of all things"
or
"Evolutionists don't think that sin ever caused man to fall"?

Anyone who makes statements like these has not researched the actual opinions of evolutionists, in particular theistic evolutionists. They are talking through their hat and can't reference what they are saying.

The only place I used the word "lie" was in reference to the statement: "Evolution was invented by atheists and supported by atheists at its start."

That is an outright lie. Darwin was not an atheist when he proposed evolution by natural selection. As far as I know neither were Wallace, Lamarck or many others who proposed some kind of evolutionary scheme. And while evolutionary theory was supported by atheists, it was also supported by deists and theists--most of the latter being Christian. This is easily verifiable by simple historical and biographical research on-line or at your local library. Or one might begin by reading the excellent little book by David N. Livingstone called Darwin's Forgotten Defenders. There is no excuse for publishing such a shoddy lie.

What is wrong with the whole presentation is that it equates evolution with atheism. This is confounding science with philosophy. In my response to at least five of the ten points I used the phrase "evolution is science not theology."

Go to any science textbook you wish, high-school or university. You will not find in it any discussion of God, the bible, sin, the incarnation, the atonement, redemption, salvation, or the purpose of life.

And I am not just talking about texts on evolution. It doesn't matter whether the science under discussion is physics, chemistry, geology, oceanography, metallurgy, medicine or meterology. Those theological concepts are just not part of science. And biology is science, just like all those other sciences. Evolution is the principal theory of biological science.

It is nonsensical to fault evolution for its theology when it does not have any theology--no more than gravity or relativity or germ theory or atomic theory has any theology. It is precisely because evolution has no theology that people of every theology can engage in studying it.

There are only two legitimate ways to reject evolution.

One is on scientific grounds. I don't think a single one of those ten objections was based on science. And after 150 years of scientific scrutiny, there are no obvious scientific grounds for rejecting evolution.

The second is to agree that evolution is the best scientific explanation for bio-diversity, but to reject it anyway, because one's personal theological commitments do not permit one to accept the existence of evolution. In this case one correctly identifies the conflict as one that is a matter of personal faith rather than a problem endemic to evolution per se.

The illegitimate way to reject evolution is to paint it as something it is not. That is what was done here, since the basic principle was that evolution = atheism. Since this assumption underlies all the ten points, all the ten points are based on an initial false assumption and are not valid.

 

[Vance]

When you consider that the vast majority of Christian scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution, the whole "evolution equals atheism" is just ridiculous.

 

[shernren]

Delta: I'm not sure what you're trying to refute - are you saying there was no death whatsoever (animal, plant - specify) before the Fall, or no human death before the Fall? Because I believe the first is illogical, while the second need not be contradicted by TE.

You've just taken Genesis 1:1 literally. How ironic.

Was that an insult? We read the same Bible you do.

You are correct in that it is not a science book - thank God for that because "science" changes all the time to conform with the facts, while the Bible has never changed and has always and most likely will always conform with the facts that we observe in nature.

Oh no, the Bible doesn't have to change in tandem with science, precisely because the Bible has nothing to say about science. True, here and there you'll find strangely prescient statements with interesting scientific implications - then again, you'll find the bat being labeled a bird and the ratio of circumference to diameter three. The Bible is still authoritative regardless - and yet even though I am a Bible-believing Christian I think a bat belongs under mammals. Is there a conflict? No.

On an interesting tangent, I think the Christian position has always been the best position from which to investigate the world. Christianity affirms the basic goodness in creation through the Creation story (whether or not it really happened in that order) and the fundamental "realness" of reality. I find that it is unique among religions in this manner: Islam is wildly supernatural at many points, Hinduism believes that nothing actually exists, Buddhism believes that everything that exists is busy changing into something else anyway, and New Age religion peppers the universe with unquantifiable "positive energy" whose only purpose seems to be to help us have whatever we want, heaven help whatever physical laws are in the way! But Christianity believes that God created with reason: and what He created with reason He also gave us the intellect to investigate with reason. Why let over-literalism take away this beautiful part of our faith?

 

[cds113089]

Partly I was being brief because the response was really to a cut-and-paste, not to the poster. Also, I don't feel obligated to provide references in response to a poster or article who does not. For example where does cds113089 support his contention that evolution was invented by atheists? Where does the article from christiananswers reference such statements as
"theistic evolutionists don't need God to be the center of all things"
or
"Evolutionists don't think that sin ever caused man to fall"?

It's kind of common knowledge that Charles Darwin, an atheist, first came up with the theory. And it's common sense that says if evolutionists don't believe that Adam existed, or at least didn't commit the first sin, then evolutionists wouldn't think sin caused man to fall. I didn't think I'd need to spell out the obvious.

Anyone who makes statements like these has not researched the actual opinions of evolutionists, in particular theistic evolutionists. They are talking through their hat and can't reference what they are saying.

The only place I used the word "lie" was in reference to the statement: "Evolution was invented by atheists and supported by atheists at its start."

Whatever he was, he wasn't a Christian. If you want to call him an agnostic, that's the same thing.

What is wrong with the whole presentation is that it equates evolution with atheism. This is confounding science with philosophy. In my response to at least five of the ten points I used the phrase "evolution is science not theology."

Exactly my point. Evolutionists completely ignore the Bible because they think it irrelevant. In the theistic evolutionist's mind, if "science" discovers something, it must be true, no matter what God says.

Go to any science textbook you wish, high-school or university. You will not find in it any discussion of God, the bible, sin, the incarnation, the atonement, redemption, salvation, or the purpose of life.

That's because you can't talk about religion in school, which is partially what leads to the evolutionary bias taught today. And again, you're proving my point that theistic evolutionists completely ignore the Bible.

It is nonsensical to fault evolution for its theology when it does not have any theology--no more than gravity or relativity or germ theory or atomic theory has any theology. It is precisely because evolution has no theology that people of every theology can engage in studying it.

Try looking at the root word. "Theology", "theory"...sound familiar?

There are only two legitimate ways to reject evolution.

One is on scientific grounds. I don't think a single one of those ten objections was based on science. And after 150 years of scientific scrutiny, there are no obvious scientific grounds for rejecting evolution.

The second is to agree that evolution is the best scientific explanation for bio-diversity, but to reject it anyway, because one's personal theological commitments do not permit one to accept the existence of evolution. In this case one correctly identifies the conflict as one that is a matter of personal faith rather than a problem endemic to evolution per se.

The illegitimate way to reject evolution is to paint it as something it is not. That is what was done here, since the basic principle was that evolution = atheism. Since this assumption underlies all the ten points, all the ten points are based on an initial false assumption and are not valid.

So no matter what, it's always the Christian's problem when he rejects evolution. Either he's closed-minded or uninformed. Real nice way to do exactly what you accuse me of doing--painting YEC's as something they are not.

I can't help but notice that you didn't correct the ten points, or even mention why they were false.

If you reject the Genesis story, passing it off as "symbolic", even though there is nothing in Scriptures that imply it is symbolic, although Exodus 20:11, Romans 5:12, and Jesus Himself seem to say that it is literal. Are Exodus and Romans symbolic now, too?

Theistic evolutionists automatically side with science when science and Scripture disagree (which is extremely rare). They do this even though in doing so they pass off many of Jesus' words, the words of Paul in Romans, and the words of Moses in Exodus, as "symbolic."

 

[gluadys]

It's kind of common knowledge that Charles Darwin, an atheist, first came up with the theory.

Darwin was a Christian most of his life and still a theist when he first published his theory. He did lose faith later, but it was occasioned more by his daughter's death than by his study of nature.

Besides, he was not the only one to come up with the idea of evolution. Many others had already done so, and many of them were Christian. Darwin's importance has never been that he developed the concept of evolution, but that he developed the theory of natural selection as the principle mechanism of evolution.

There is simply no historical truth to the charge that evolution comes from an atheist mind-set and that only atheists dreamed it up or supported it.

And it's common sense that says if evolutionists don't believe that Adam existed, or at least didn't commit the first sin, then evolutionists wouldn't think sin caused man to fall. I didn't think I'd need to spell out the obvious.

But that is not obvious at all. In the first place, evolution does not rule out the possibility that Adam existed and committed the first sin. In the second place, even if Adam did not exist, sin is still a reality and it doesn't really matter who the first sinner was. Humanity has still fallen away from its creator and this fall has impacted all of creation.

Evolution doesn't take away from the fall or sin or need of redemption in the least.

Exactly my point. Evolutionists completely ignore the Bible because they think it irrelevant. In the theistic evolutionist's mind, if "science" discovers something, it must be true, no matter what God says.

Oh, how can you get things so wrong? The dearth of references to the bible in scientific textbooks no more means that evolutionists ignore the bible than the dearth of Shakespearian sonnets in math textbooks means that mathematicians ignore great English poetry.

All it means is that theology is not part of science, just as literature is not part of arithmetic.

Nor does it follow that what science discovers must be true. However, if the discovery, after many attempts to falsify it, still stands unfalsified, the probability is that it is true. And anything that is true is what God says. So, it well behooves those who claim to worship God to listen to what God is saying.

That's because you can't talk about religion in school, which is partially what leads to the evolutionary bias taught today. And again, you're proving my point that theistic evolutionists completely ignore the Bible.

No, it is because theology is not science. And you can talk about religion, theology and the bible in school in a class structured for the purpose of studying religion. Even under American church/state rules, as long as different religions are treated fairly vis-a-vis each other and no promoting of religion occurs, classes where such topics are discussed are perfectly legal. So it is simply not true that you can't talk about religion in school.

Please show me where theistic evolutionists "ignore" the bible rather than simply reading it differently than you do.

Try looking at the root word. "Theology", "theory"...sound familiar?

Ever hear of false cognates? Sound alone is not enough to identify a root.

[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]

Not the same root as "theology" which comes from theos (god) + logos (study, discourse)

So no matter what, it's always the Christian's problem when he rejects evolution. Either he's closed-minded or uninformed. Real nice way to do exactly what you accuse me of doing--painting YEC's as something they are not.

I am willing to entertain another possibility if you can demonstrate that it exists.

I can't help but notice that you didn't correct the ten points, or even mention why they were false.

I most certainly did mention why they were false. Most of them were berating evolution for its incorrect theology. Since evolution does not come with any theology attached, the criticism fails on that ground alone.

If you reject the Genesis story, passing it off as "symbolic",

Hold it right there. You are the one who is equating "symbolic" with "reject". What is the basis of that? Why is it not permissible to accept the Genesis story as symbolic? I am not saying you need to change your mind on this personally. But why can you not allow others the freedom to interpret in the way that makes most sense to them? Why is any interpretation except yours a rejection of the biblical account of creation?

Theistic evolutionists automatically side with science when science and Scripture disagree (which is extremely rare). They do this even though in doing so they pass off many of Jesus' words, the words of Paul in Romans, and the words of Moses in Exodus, as "symbolic."

Theistic evolutionists insist that a true understanding of science and a true understanding of scripture cannot disagree ever. Truth never disagrees with truth. And they do not "pass off" any words of the scripture. A non-literal reading of scripture is not---I repeat--is not a rejection of scripture.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Plagiarism is theft, even if what's stolen us a load of dingos' kidneys. Do creationists have no scruples?

This was actually by Werner Gitt, and I answered it point by point here: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/10dangers.htm years ago.

The problem with believing evolution and Christianity is this:

[Plagiarised nonsense snipped]

 

[SBG]

Plagiarism is theft, even if what's stolen us a load of dingos' kidneys. Do creationists have no scruples?

This was actually by Werner Gitt, and I answered it point by point here: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/10dangers.htm years ago.

Wait...wait...wait. In another thread, you just went off about how YECs lump TEs together. Here you lump YECs together.

I think each side has this problem, not just one side.

If that was plagarism, nice catch. It might have been more charitable to ask him if this was his intent instead of just accusing him of it. He may have forgotton to include the source.

You make mistakes too, don't you?

EDIT:

I went and looked at the post you claim is plagarism. Karl, you might want to put on glasses or take them off. If you read carefully, you will find this in his post:

" From christiananswers.net, here are the 10 dangers (paraphrased) of theistic evolution:"

A little a hasty, wasn't that Karl? Did you even read his post?

 

[shernren]

It's kind of common knowledge that Charles Darwin, an atheist, first came up with the theory. And it's common sense that says if evolutionists don't believe that Adam existed, or at least didn't commit the first sin, then evolutionists wouldn't think sin caused man to fall. I didn't think I'd need to spell out the obvious.

Newton was a heretic (who denied the Trinity) and Einstein was an atheist. Why do we still teach children that F=ma and E=mc squared?

So no matter what, it's always the Christian's problem when he rejects evolution. Either he's closed-minded or uninformed. Real nice way to do exactly what you accuse me of doing--painting YEC's as something they are not.

Tell me something. Does the world condemn the Crusades because they were carried out under Christian motives? Or because they were completely mis-motivated campaigns of violence?

Science doesn't despise scientific creationism because it's Christian - science despises scientific creationism because it has shown itself to be unscientific, fullstop. Muslim creationists get a lot of flak too, and they're certainly not associated with Jesus and His cross.