Why do you think that Christians who believe in evolution do so?
Just out of interest really, do you think we've been somehow fooled, or what?
Just out of interest really, do you think we've been somehow fooled, or what?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
Very quick question for creationists...
- Thread starter ab1385
- Start date
- Status
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I believe in evolution and I'm a young earth creationist, evolution is not an all or none proposition. What happens is evolution as natural science is blended with evolution as natural history and it's an unnatural mix.
Evolution as science is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, while evolution as natural history is the a priori assumption of a single common ancestor. Christians who 'believe' in evolution are putting their faith in something that is either irrelevant to their spiritual well being, or worse then useless.
Upvote
0
laptoppop
Servant of the living God
- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I prefer the term "constrained variation" rather than the non-natural history evolution terminology -- but that's just me.
In terms of the OP, I think people believe in evolution because they believe the consensus theory of modern science is more authoritative than the peshat reading of Scripture.
In terms of the OP, I think people believe in evolution because they believe the consensus theory of modern science is more authoritative than the peshat reading of Scripture.
Upvote
0
More authoritative how? I mean, if I wanted to look up molecular physics, for example, I would have no problem in saying that a physics textbook is better able to answer the question than the bible. the same with scientific consensus.
Or is that not what you mean by more authoritative?
Or is that not what you mean by more authoritative?
Upvote
0
laptoppop
Servant of the living God
- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
By more authoritative I mean a basic disposition to consider one more trustworthy than the other -- when there is a conflict, who do you believe? How do you resolve the conflict?
The problem becomes when science extends beyond investigation of current processes and starts to guess (theorize) about history. When the guesses contradict the history record of Scripture -- how do you resolve the conflict?
The problem becomes when science extends beyond investigation of current processes and starts to guess (theorize) about history. When the guesses contradict the history record of Scripture -- how do you resolve the conflict?
Upvote
0
So would I be correct in summarizing as follows:
You believe that:
Science teaches us that evolution is true (do you believe this?)
Genesis teaches a literal 6 day creation <10k years ago
You think the bible is more 'authoritative' than science, therefore science has either somehow got it wrong, or we have been deceived
Is that pretty much it? Any other creationists agree/disagree?
You believe that:
Science teaches us that evolution is true (do you believe this?)
Genesis teaches a literal 6 day creation <10k years ago
You think the bible is more 'authoritative' than science, therefore science has either somehow got it wrong, or we have been deceived
Is that pretty much it? Any other creationists agree/disagree?
Upvote
0
laptoppop
Servant of the living God
- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Close -- but no (for me only, I can't speak for others).
I'd say:
The current consensus view of scientists is that evolution in natural history is true.
The physical evidence is actually better interpreted scientifically in light of a global flood and a young (<10K years) earth.
This interpretation of the fossil record and geologic column is consistent with a peshat reading of Genesis and the rest of Scripture.
When there is a conflict between our understanding of Scripture and our understanding of nature through scientific methods, we need to examine both to resolve the conflict. God's natural revelation is not in conflict with His special revelation. In the case of an irreconcilable conflict, one must believe God.
There is a great deceiver (satan) who would desire people to disbelieve the Scriptures and is able to make other positions, such as natural-history evolution seem plausible.
The funding and number of scientists working in the evolutionary field is drastically greater than that available for creationism. The available research reflects that imbalance.
The scientific method BY DESIGN does not allow for God (the supernatural). Everything must be explained in normal, natural, repeatable processes. While this is fine for process analysis, we must be careful when trying to apply it to history. God is alive and working in history, and any process that excludes or restricts the working of God to purely natural methods is invalid.
I'd say:
The current consensus view of scientists is that evolution in natural history is true.
The physical evidence is actually better interpreted scientifically in light of a global flood and a young (<10K years) earth.
This interpretation of the fossil record and geologic column is consistent with a peshat reading of Genesis and the rest of Scripture.
When there is a conflict between our understanding of Scripture and our understanding of nature through scientific methods, we need to examine both to resolve the conflict. God's natural revelation is not in conflict with His special revelation. In the case of an irreconcilable conflict, one must believe God.
There is a great deceiver (satan) who would desire people to disbelieve the Scriptures and is able to make other positions, such as natural-history evolution seem plausible.
The funding and number of scientists working in the evolutionary field is drastically greater than that available for creationism. The available research reflects that imbalance.
The scientific method BY DESIGN does not allow for God (the supernatural). Everything must be explained in normal, natural, repeatable processes. While this is fine for process analysis, we must be careful when trying to apply it to history. God is alive and working in history, and any process that excludes or restricts the working of God to purely natural methods is invalid.
Upvote
0
Scotishfury09
G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life
Good post, laptoppop, I agree completely. I think it's easy for some (I can't claim all) TE's to believe in evolution and a non-literal view of Genesis because it's easier for them to relate Genesis to unbelievers if it doesn't sound absurd to them. Satan has had what I believe to be a little over 6000 years to twist this truth into what it has become.
Here's a passage from a book by Henry M. Morris called The Genesis Record about Lot living in the wicked city of Sodom in Genesis 18:
"What a perfect picture Lot exhibits of a modern-day carnal Christian! He thinks he has the best of both worlds--the eternal benefit of knowing the Lord as Savior, but also all the temporal benefits that result from worldly influence and possessions, together with acceptance by and fellowship with men of the world. Their gross wickedness may vex his soul a bit, and he may not wish to enter into quite all of their activities, but in general he gets along with them just fine, and is quite pleased with himself that he does. A day of reckoning will come, however."
I think that this is true of a lot of people who don't rely on God's word as explicit truth and try and shape it to fit the world.
Here's a passage from a book by Henry M. Morris called The Genesis Record about Lot living in the wicked city of Sodom in Genesis 18:
"What a perfect picture Lot exhibits of a modern-day carnal Christian! He thinks he has the best of both worlds--the eternal benefit of knowing the Lord as Savior, but also all the temporal benefits that result from worldly influence and possessions, together with acceptance by and fellowship with men of the world. Their gross wickedness may vex his soul a bit, and he may not wish to enter into quite all of their activities, but in general he gets along with them just fine, and is quite pleased with himself that he does. A day of reckoning will come, however."
I think that this is true of a lot of people who don't rely on God's word as explicit truth and try and shape it to fit the world.
Upvote
0
vossler
Senior Veteran
- Jul 20, 2004
- 2,760
- 158
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Once again laptoppop you've said it far better than I ever could. I just need to remember post after you do, this way it will save me a lot of time. 
In case I miss being able to concur with one of your great posts, I'll just let everyone know ahead of time that whatever you say goes for me too!
In case I miss being able to concur with one of your great posts, I'll just let everyone know ahead of time that whatever you say goes for me too!
Upvote
0
pastorkevin73
Senior Member
IMO I don't think that science teaches about evolution. It is people who interprete science and teach about evolution. When it comes down to it I think that some scientists have misinterpreted the information and came up with the conclusion of evolution. Frankly, the study of evolution has only been around for proximately 150 years, an amount of time which is far to small to be able to say that evolution is true.
One other point; that study of evolution cannot involve experients which cause adaptations. To see if evolution is true, which I don't think it is, one has to observe and cannot interfere in the "process". Many scientists say they can do an experiement with a fruit fly as evidence of evolution. This is not the case. All the scientist has proven is that he/she can manipulate a part of the reproduction of life. In the end, the manipulated fruitfly is still a fruitfly.
I agree with other posters that when there is conflict between the Bible and Science we must accept the Bible. God doesn't lie and humans make errors all the time. This happens all the time in science. An experiement is done and a mistake is maken and then based on the result a conclusion is made. Then someone comes a long and tests that conclusion and finds the orgional experiement had an error and comes to a new conclusion. I think that some TEs have mentioned that evolution as a theory has "evolved" as new "evidence" is given. So is seems that the ToE evolves as well. I think it is best for us not to make evolution a conclusion until all the facts and with absolutly no doubt is left before someone can make evolution a conclusion.
Upvote
0
Thank you for your posts. Obviously, from the way I posted, I disagree, but this was to find out about your viewpoint rather than debate it.
Have a good day!
Have a good day!
Upvote
0
LetHimThatGlories
Regular Member
Well, I see scientific evidence like the number "2"; you can add "1.5" and "0.5" to get the same number, "1" and "1", or technically, any number of "numbers". We know that "2" exists, though we can disagree on how it resulted, or the significance of it. In reality, it's more complicated than that, but that's the basic gist of it. When reading the Bible, it's sort of like bypassing the "scientific research", and getting it right from the source.
However, since the field of evolution is quite well developed by now, and has many adherents in the scientific field, it can be quite hard to argue against it without coming off looking foolish. It's hard to go against the majority, especially when they know bigger words than you do. So essentially (right or wrong) my first thought is that TE's have compromised, to avoid having people look down on them.
However, since the field of evolution is quite well developed by now, and has many adherents in the scientific field, it can be quite hard to argue against it without coming off looking foolish. It's hard to go against the majority, especially when they know bigger words than you do. So essentially (right or wrong) my first thought is that TE's have compromised, to avoid having people look down on them.
Upvote
0
Floodnut
Veteran
- Jun 23, 2005
- 1,183
- 72
- 71
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You asked why do I think Christians believe in evolution? Do I think they have been fooled? Yes. Deceived would be a better word. They have believed a lie of the devil. But I don't know if I am allowed to say this. I think they are Christians who are deceived. Evolution is a lie. Not that all who espouse it are lying, but the whole notion and idea is a lie and a deception of the Wicked One.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It's a bait and switch, it starts out the frequency of alleles in populations over time. That pretty much makes everyone an evolutionist and then it's everything comes from a single cell common ancestor that lived 3 billion years ago. To deny that living things evolved in an unbroken line from the first primordial bacteria and fauna to me and you is being unscientific. To that I say baloney and...well yea, I think they are somehow fooled.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
