Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Hoghead1]

It seems to me that by your own standards, KW, you are violating Scripture and following what you take to be godless science. You said you have no trouble believing in a heliocentric solar system. Well, in biblical geophysics, the earth is definitely flat, stand still, and everything revolves around it. So if you are going with a spherical earth, etc., then you yourself are challenging the authority of Scripture.

 

[Hoghead1]

That's not at all accurate about Scripture, KW. The biblical world did view the earth as flat. We maybe use figures of speech today that way, but in biblical times, they meant business. That's why you never see any biblical references to a spherical earth or a heliocentric system. That's why biblical descriptions make absolutely no sense with a spherical earth. In Isaiah, God sits at the top of the dome of the sky, looking down on earth. The prophet is stressing here that God sees and knows everything going on. That means the prophet has a flat earth in mind. Otherwise, God could see only the top of the earth, not the whole thing.

 

[Hoghead1]

For you, Kimrichard47, but not for science. I wonder why. Probably because you are not on the front lines. Alfred Russell Wallace, who also championed evolution and was a colleague of Darwin, spend years living in jungles, observing firsthand, studying organisms in painstaking detail, becoming one with nature. So naturally, to those of us sitting comfortably in civilization, evolution might seem very strange.

 

[Hoghead1]

It doesn't follow that God lied to us, Thorough. What does follow is that Scripture is not inerrant. Divinely inspired as it may be, Scripture is still the product of a prescientific culture. Scripture is very much colored with human fingerprints.

 

[Archivist]

Not so. Gravity is a proven fact. Without it reality would be we would all just float away.

Wrong. The law of gravity describes the attraction between two objects. The theory of gravity describes why the objects attract each other. Thsi was stated earlier in the thread.

 

[Hoghead1]

But they do not, Extraneous. The main reason why I reject creating-science is that it violates all the principles of solid science. Here are just a few of the major violations I find. Presenting bogus credentials is illegitimate. Presenting the unqualified judgments of unqualified persons on sensitive scientific matters is illegitimate. Presenting one's religious beliefs as having to be accepted without question is illegitimate. Presenting one's religious beliefs as the sole criterion by which to determine the validity of scientific findings is illegitimate.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not sure about your understanding of gravity, Archi8vist. Einstein argued objects were bending space. That's how it works. He said nothing about objects attracting one another.

 

[Hoghead1]

Tee issue, EastCoast,really isn't about whether God is wrong or the Bible is wrong. The issue is whether YOUR interpretation is right or wrong. Apparently you hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. OK, fine. But that is simply a human-made, possibly fallible theory or collection of speculations about how God and Scripture may be related. Like any theory, it should be tested out. Now I submit that when it is, it doesn't hold water. There are, for example, too many contradictions in Scripture. That doesn't mean we throw Scripture out the window, just that we change our understanding of how Scripture and God are related.

 

[Extraneous]

But they do not, Extraneous. The main reason why I reject creating-science is that it violates all the principles of solid science. Here are just a few of the major violations I find. Presenting bogus credentials is illegitimate. Presenting the unqualified judgments of unqualified persons on sensitive scientific matters is illegitimate. Presenting one's religious beliefs as having to be accepted without question is illegitimate. Presenting one's religious beliefs as the sole criterion by which to determine the validity of scientific findings is illegitimate.

I just don't believe ToE is legitimate science. I have never seen mankind misuse science in other theories as he has in things like ToE and Global warming. You wont see science invent evidence for other areas of science, and this is because ToE is like a religion to some people. That's the way i see it. Its quite unreasonable to ask me not to use my God given common sense when evaluating the legitimacy of ToE. Its not good enough to just tell me to blindly accept it, especially after i have seen a so much bogus evidence presented over the years. Also, don't expect me to believe they can look millions of years into the past, and determine mans origin, using DNA, when they cant even read 80% of human DNA,. ITs all quite unreasonable to ask me not to use common sense when judging these things. IT doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that ToE is snake oil science.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as I agree, EastCoast. It appears that you ant to demonize anything that goes against your belief system. Question is: How reality based is your theology when it comes to God, the Bible, and creation? I don't accept anything at face value. I have trouble accepting claims based on nothing more than one's own authority. That's why I am wondering what evidence you can cite in favor of your claims.

 

[Hoghead1]

The distinction, EastCoast, between micro- and macro- is not scientific. It comes largely from creation-science people, but is not accepted in the real world of science. Macroevolution has been crated in the lab with bacteria. So, yes, it has been observed. On a larger scale, it can be difficult to observe because it takes such a long time. In Russia, for example, they are doing a long-term study to see if you can turn foxes into dogs. To date, the results are promising. The foxes are talking on genuine dog traits, such as tameness, a sine qua non of dogdom. But it has taken a long time. Also, if your standard is that you won't believe in anything unless it has been directly observed, then how can you believe that God created the world in six days? Nobody was around to directly observe that.

 

[Hoghead1]

All that is, of course, according to your own theology, Extraneous. The Christian mystical tradition would argue otherwise. There, evolution is seen as the process by which God brings about the Kingdom. And note, "evolution" was used in the mystical literature before it came into science.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not so, Alithis. In the writings of the scientist and Jesuite Teilhard de Chardin, for example, the Resurrection and evolution go hand in hand. And there are a number of other excellent christologies out there which accept evolution. I suggest you study the available literature more carefully.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as I agree, Hier. You tackled the problem, with YOUR interpretation and understanding of Scripture. I, for one, do not automatically accept that one's interpretation of Scripture is correct in any respect.

 

[Hoghead1]

I take it you believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, Kobbern. I find that theory went out the window years ago in modern biblical studies and with good reason.

 

[Hoghead1]

In sconce, Hier, the word "theory" simply means two or more assumptions connected together. It has nothing to do with whether something is verified or not.

 

[Archivist]

I'm not sure about your understanding of gravity, Archi8vist. Einstein argued objects were bending space. That's how it works. He said nothing about objects attracting one another.

Newton said that gravity was a pulling force, but my understanding of Einstein's model of gravity as an entity of space-time and mass, it is possible for gravity to push objects possessing mass towards each other. If I am wrong I stand corrected.

 

[dece870717]

"Why do Christians have trouble with accepting evolution?" First off, I would carefully define evolution, as YEC Christians do believe in a type of evolution, as in a variation of a kind, so in that sense, all Christians accept that form of "evolution".

The real simple answer, because that's not what the Bible says, lol. The real big problem is that if Genesis is supposed to be some kind of allegory, it's the worst one ever thought of, it fails to the utmost degree at being an allegory or anything of that sort;

Bible - Earth created out of water
Secular Model of Origins - Earth created from hot molten mass

Bible - Earth before sun
Secular - Sun before earth

Bible - Oceans before land
Secular - Land before oceans

Bible - Light before sun
Secular - Sun before light

Bible - Land plants first
Secular - Marine life first

Bible - Whales before insests
Secular - Insects before whales

Bible - Plants before sun
Secular - Sun before plants

Bible - Birds before reptiles
Secular - Reptiles before birds

And the most theologically significant;

Bible - Man brought death into the world
Secular - Death brought man into the world

These two theories of origins COULD NOT be anymore opposed. The idea that Genesis is some sort of allegory or something like that is obliterated in just comparing the two.

Oh and

Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I think that makes it even more clear in regards to Genesis, especially considering that verse is part of the ten commandments, not the ten allegorical commandments or the 9 literal and 1 allegorical commandment.
-----------------------------------------------

Also, getting a better detailed definition/understanding of the words, using context, rightly reading poetic language as poetry, distinguishing literal from figurative language, understanding the perspective from which the text is written, and understanding when a figure of speech is being used, prevents issues of supposed flat earth verses.

 

[KWCrazy]

You might want to take a look sometime, KW, at the writings of Teilhard de Chardin, who did believe that the Bible points to evolution.

Fine. Show me the passages he cited which disproved the creation account in Genesis and the Fourth Commandment as described in Exodus 20:11.

 

[ScottA]

Divinely inspired as Scripture may be, KW, it is still the produce of a prescientific culture. It is just as much the work of the biblical writers as it is inspiration. The Bible is covered with human fingerprints. As my OT professor used to say, "The Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of Man. The Word of God is revealed through the Word of Man."

Wow...that explains a lot...all of which describes a world view below the level of interaction with the Holy Spirit. Pathetic. Sad. A hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy - takin' a free ride on God's dime.