What evolutionary ideas are damaging to Christianity?

[jereth]

We've all heard YECs say that evolutionism threatens Christianity and the gospel. I would be interested to know which specific evolutionary ideas are considered to be the damaging ones.

Please follow up your vote with an explanation of why and how you believe the idea(s) are damaging.

This poll is in the general area so that TEs are free to debate what YECs say.

Thanks.

 

[RightWingGirl]

I think that the theory of evolution, if believed to be true, is damaging to Christianity in the many ways, a few of which are;

1. It destroys the credibility of the Bible leaving it half poetry or fairy tale, and half history. If a person is told the Bible is not factual in one part, why should they think it is factual in other parts? Scientists tell us the world is billions of years old, but they also tell us that man cannot rise from the dead. Why should the Bible be revised to accommodate one, and not the other?

2. Evolution made atheism and materialism respectable. Why should a non-Christian obey God's laws, if there doesn't have to be a God?

3. According to Evolution death, strife, and violence is the natural way of things, and how God created the world to be. Have you ever been asked why God allows bad things to happen, such as hurricanes? If evolution is true than God is allowing these things to happen, and are they are a result of God's created world, not man's sin.

3. If evolution is true, than to the non-Christian a man is no more than an animal, and suicide, murder, and abortion are no more wrong than killing an animal is.

4. “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”---G. Richard Bozarth,

 

[jereth]

I think that the theory of evolution, if believed to be true, is damaging to Christianity in the many ways, a few of which are;

Thank you for responding. However, the points that you make have been made time and again by YECists and refuted by TEs.

I wanted to know which specific scientific evolutionary ideas YECs think are damaging. Not just "I think evolution is all bad because it makes people not believe in God." That's not an adequate or well reasoned argument.

BTW, I find the poll results very telling... I'd be tempted to conclude based on the poll that evolution really isn't all that harmful to Christianity after all.

 

[KerrMetric]

Why should a non-Christian obey God's laws, if there doesn't have to be a God?

This makes no sense. This can be applied whether there is evolution or not.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Evolution isn't damaging to Christianity, Christianity is damaging to evolution. Read Genesis 1 then do a cross reference on Adam and Eve throughout the Bible.

Oh, and yes, Genesis 1 is literal. History if always literal.

 

[Mskedi]

I think that the theory of evolution, if believed to be true, is damaging to Christianity in the many ways, a few of which are;

1. It destroys the credibility of the Bible leaving it half poetry or fairy tale, and half history. If a person is told the Bible is not factual in one part, why should they think it is factual in other parts? Scientists tell us the world is billions of years old, but they also tell us that man cannot rise from the dead. Why should the Bible be revised to accommodate one, and not the other?

No one's asking anyone to revise anything but their thinking. There's no harm in the creation story not being literal. I've learned tons of truths from books that weren't literal.

2. Evolution made atheism and materialism respectable. Why should a non-Christian obey God's laws, if there doesn't have to be a God?

That doesn't make sense -- why would a non-Christian obey God's laws regardless?

3. If evolution is true, than to the non-Christian a man is no more than an animal, and suicide, murder, and abortion are no more wrong than killing an animal is.

Again, you're talking about non-Christians. How is evolution harmful to Christians? And I'd also like to point out that people who are not Christian are prefectly capable of having ethical behavior -- something you don't seem to give them credit for.

4. “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”---G. Richard Bozarth,

I have yet to see any connection between the creation of the world and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Whether or not Adam and Eve were the first to sin, there is sin in the world and something had to be done about it. A literal reading of Genesis doesn't seem necessary to understand the meaning of Jesus' death.

 

[LoG]

We've all heard YECs say that evolutionism threatens Christianity and the gospel. I would be interested to know which specific evolutionary ideas are considered to be the damaging ones.

It boggles the mind how deafness is so rampant on these threads. They are full of comments by YEC's and other literal creationists as to what the problem is and yet here is a poll that lists 10 points that are not the issue.

 

[jereth]

and yet here is a poll that lists 10 points that are not the issue.

You've got to be kidding, mate. AiG literature fights vigorously against each and every one of these 10 points, claiming that they are all in some way or other damaging to Christianity and/or the gospel. And now you say that they are "not the issue" ?!?!

What I've tried to do here is pin down YECists into explaining exactly how each specific evolutionary idea damages Christianity. It's not enough to rail against "evolution" in general. Evolutionism is a complex scientific system, incorporating genetics, biology, paleontology, chemistry, anthropology, geology, planetary science, astronomy, cosmology and fundamental physics. To have credibility, you need to be specific and tell us which bits of evolutionism you think are damaging to Christianity, and why.

 

[pastorkevin73]

You've got to be kidding, mate. AiG literature fights vigorously against each and every one of these 10 points, claiming that they are all in some way or other damaging to Christianity and/or the gospel. And now you say that they are "not the issue" ?!?!

What I've tried to do here is pin down YECists into explaining exactly how each specific evolutionary idea damages Christianity. It's not enough to rail against "evolution" in general. Evolutionism is a complex scientific system, incorporating genetics, biology, paleontology, chemistry, anthropology, geology, planetary science, astronomy, cosmology and fundamental physics. To have credibility, you need to be specific and tell us which bits of evolutionism you think are damaging to Christianity, and why.

I agree. The ten points are not the issue. The issue is do you believe that God is who He says He is in His Word and that His Word is true. Again, evolution does not threaten Christianity, Christianity threatens evolution. Why? Because God is real and true, evolution is not real or true. Read Genesis 1. God always wins. Remember God created science, so when we truely seek the truth through science it will confirm the truth of the Scriptures. Evolution cannot be a conclusion because more questions arise the more research is done. Eventually the data will prove God's Word. One other thing to note, we do not know what the world was like before the flood in Genesis. So it is pretty difficult to draw evolution as a conclusion, because the flood possibly disturbed what we know as carbon dating.

 

[KerrMetric]

So it is pretty difficult to draw evolution as a conclusion, because the flood possibly disturbed what we know as carbon dating.

Not only is this wrong it's just silly.

 

[gluadys]

So it is pretty difficult to draw evolution as a conclusion, because the flood possibly disturbed what we know as carbon dating.

What about the flood would have the capacity to disturb carbon dating?

This sort of careless ad hoc speculation destroys any pretension to credibility.

 

[Silent Bob]

What about the flood would have the capacity to disturb carbon dating?

This sort of careless ad hoc speculation destroys any pretension to credibility.

Was it THIS speculation that bogles you? How about the fact that most fossils creationists have problems with were never dated using carbon since it can only go back to 60.000 years ago. They just use carbon dating because it is the most widely known type of radiodating.

They build themselves a strawman and: ATTACK!!111!

 

[charityagape]

I'm posting before reading, I'll go back and read, its just after I read so many posts I get sidetracked on my original idea.

I take "damaging" to mean a major damage not just a "little". LOL, whatever that means.

Anyway, I think only the ones envolving Adam and God's relationship with him and his literal existance are seriously damaging to christianity.

 

[charityagape]

Weird. A lot of posts, but I'm the first to vote.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Saying we don't need Christ if there was no literal Adam is like saying a window isn't broken because we thought Tim did it but it turned out that he didn't.

 

[jereth]

Anyway, I think only the ones envolving Adam and God's relationship with him and his literal existance are seriously damaging to christianity.

Thanks, charityagape, for being the first person to give a genuine, considered response as well as to vote. (Finally! )

Yes, I would agree that the "figurativeness" of Adam is the most problematic evolutionary notion for traditional formulations of Christian doctrine (the doctrine of original sin in particular). TEs have had to do some hard, scholarly thinking to explain original sin against the background of a figurative Adam. Nevertheless, we have successfully done so, and the majority of TEs do not feel any discomfort with this new formulation.

Thanks again.

 

[charityagape]

No discomfort?

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.



1 Corinthians 15:20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.



No discomfort whatsoever?

These are very central passages that according to TE must compare a very literal Jesus with a very imaginary Adam.

 

[charityagape]

Thanks, charityagape, for being the first person to give a genuine, considered response as well as to vote. (Finally! )

.

Thank you.

 

[Willtor]

These are two symbolic roles being fulfilled. If one was filled by a group of people and one filled by a single person, I see no problem with the passages cited. Just so long as they were actually fulfilled. That said, some TEs take Adam to have been a factual, historical person. But they still read the account differently than most YECs, I would imagine.

Consider this: Adam is a Hebrew name. Hebrew is not the first language. Therefore, the person in question was not actually called, "Adam." When one says that Adam was an individual who lived some thousands of years ago, one is not talking about a person named Adam.

However, if we knew his name, (let's call him "Bob") and we somehow discovered this, we would run into the same problems in Romans 5. Paul doesn't mention Bob, but he does mention Adam. But rather than focusing on Adam, let us focus on what is being said about Adam and the role he is fulfilling. We can understand that when Paul is talking about Adam, he is actually talking about Bob.

 

[charityagape]

These are two symbolic roles being fulfilled. If one was filled by a group of people and one filled by a single person, I see no problem with the passages cited. Just so long as they were actually fulfilled. That said, some TEs take Adam to have been a factual, historical person. But they still read the account differently than most YECs, I would imagine.

Consider this: Adam is a Hebrew name. Hebrew is not the first language. Therefore, the person in question was not actually called, "Adam." When one says that Adam was an individual who lived some thousands of years ago, one is not talking about a person named Adam.

However, if we knew his name, (let's call him "Bob") and we somehow discovered this, we would run into the same problems in Romans 5. Paul doesn't mention Bob, but he does mention Adam. But rather than focusing on Adam, let us focus on what is being said about Adam and the role he is fulfilling. We can understand that when Paul is talking about Adam, he is actually talking about Bob.

Read Romans 5 again, one man is pretty central. One man brought death and one life. One trespass and one act of rightousness. IMO a literal Adam, as well as a literal Jesus are pretty central to the theology in these passages.