Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[QuantumFlux]

Your scientific facts fall into God creating a mature earth. You may have not read my analogy before but I think it is a really good one and no one has yet to say it sounds stupid so here goes.

Consider this a parable of sorts. We look at the earth and these natural processes and look at where there going to determine where they have been. However look at it through the mind of a video game programmer. When he creates a game, he creates the physics and in all cases creates the environment to look aged, because if he didn't it wouldn't be ready to play in. When designing say Halo, they created planets that looked to have age and been around much longer than the month it actually took them to make it. Now pretend for a moment that you are inside the game. You are confined by the physics the game has been given. Events will happen in the game for example a meteor shower, inside of the game you would surmise that the meteors came and existed for 100s of years before reaching the planet, however, in reality the programmer made them not so long ago.

Why would he create it faster with out using the physics he created? That's easy, why wait for a mature earth when the most important creation is man. He gave us free will, which means we are the only things in creation (aside from angels fall) that would go against His will. Time would play no role until mankind was created. It would be like making a movie that is billions of years long and you know exactly what is going to happen until mankind appears, then free will comes into play and anything can happen. Why not fast forward to the good parts?

And how do you explain Mark 10:6 out of curiousity.

 

[gluadys]

Your scientific facts fall into God creating a mature earth. You may have not read my analogy before but I think it is a really good one and no one has yet to say it sounds stupid so here goes.

Consider this a parable of sorts. We look at the earth and these natural processes and look at where there going to determine where they have been. However look at it through the mind of a video game programmer. When he creates a game, he creates the physics and in all cases creates the environment to look aged, because if he didn't it wouldn't be ready to play in. When designing say Halo, they created planets that looked to have age and been around much longer than the month it actually took them to make it. Now pretend for a moment that you are inside the game. You are confined by the physics the game has been given. Events will happen in the game for example a meteor shower, inside of the game you would surmise that the meteors came and existed for 100s of years before reaching the planet, however, in reality the programmer made them not so long ago.

Why would he create it faster with out using the physics he created? That's easy, why wait for a mature earth when the most important creation is man. He gave us free will, which means we are the only things in creation (aside from angels fall) that would go against His will. Time would play no role until mankind was created.

Well, if you are comfortable with a theology that says God created a gigantic video game rather than a real world, go for it.

It would be like making a movie that is billions of years long and you know exactly what is going to happen until mankind appears, then free will comes into play and anything can happen. Why not fast forward to the good parts?

Funny. Many creationists object to scientific accounts because they include random, unpredictable events. Anything can happen with or without free will. God, apparently, chose to create an undetermined universe.

And how do you explain Mark 10:6 out of curiousity.

Straightforwardly. We are male and female and always have been. We have to join together to reproduce. Thus marriage is God's intention for us and for the benefit of our children.

Why do you ask?

 

[QuantumFlux]

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

I don't know, sounds pretty damaging to the evolutionary theory. I realize that in context he was speaking of marriage, but he specifically refers to creation in this breif passing. He specifically says "from the beginning of creation". Not from the creation of man, but from the beginning of creation.

If you add in that it was symbolic or poetic... yeah, he doesn't say it that way, which means if he said that but knew that the beginning of creation was billions of years before mankind existed, then he was being deceptive.

The funniest part of theistic evolution is that you say if he did it any other way than evolution, it is deceptive. I personally can't see how it is deceptive if he says exactly what he did. Nor do I understand why it isn't deceptive for him to say things like this yet not be deceptive.

As for the video game referrence, like i said, it was a parable used to create understanding. I dont believe the world is a video game anymore than I believe the kingdom of heaven is a farmer (matthew 20).

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Without a shred of physical evidence to support YEC and mountains of evidence suggesting it is false, I have no reason to blindly trust the words of a book written by numerous unknown authors and compiled and declared authorataive by a group of MEN.

 

[QuantumFlux]

I can deal with that point of view

At least you arent saying that they coincide

 

[staugustine68]

IOW, the scientists have not misinterpreted the evidence. It really does point to an old universe, an old earth, evolution, common descent and possibly a natural process of abiogenesis.

I'm pretty sure that you will find this to be one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know, sounds pretty damaging to the evolutionary theory. I realize that in context he was speaking of marriage, but he specifically refers to creation in this breif passing. He specifically says "from the beginning of creation". Not from the creation of man, but from the beginning of creation.

Even taking Genesis as an historical account, there were things created before humans. Genesis 1 places the creation of humans on the 6th day, not the 1st, and even on that day, terrestrial animals were created before humans. On that basis, if Jesus' words are damaging to evolution, they also contradict Genesis.

The funniest part of theistic evolution is that you say if he did it any other way than evolution, it is deceptive. I personally can't see how it is deceptive if he says exactly what he did.

God did say what he did. Creation is God's work and an examination of creation says species are all related to one another by evolution. God created life to evolve and produce a variety of species. He tells us so in our very genes.

As for the video game referrence, like i said, it was a parable used to create understanding. I dont believe the world is a video game anymore than I believe the kingdom of heaven is a farmer (matthew 20).

So do you believe the world is objectively real and that its characteristics are not determined by human wishes or biases, but are what they are irrespective of human desires?

 

[vossler]

I came across this quote today, and I think its quite telling and applicable

“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, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

Isn't it interesting how an atheist who's an evolutionist has such a clear understanding of the impact of evolution on Christianity.

 

[gluadys]

I'm pretty sure that you will find this to be one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.

A hoax requires a conspiracy. Do you mean it may be one of the greatest scientific errors of all time? Not every error is a hoax. A hoax is a deliberate plan to deceive.

As for errors, science can deal with that. Scientists have dismissed errors like the humour theory of disease, the phlogiston theory of fire, and geocentrism and continued on with new theories that explained the phenomena better. If evidence comes to light that requires a serious re-working of evolution, science will deal with it in the same way, by replacing it with a theory that better explains the evidence. But for now it is the best explanation of the observed world of biology that we have.

Hoaxes play no role in science. They may fool scientists for a time, but once exposed they are destined for the trash bin. And it would hardly be a scientific hoax if the majority of the world's scientists were in on it,would it? After all, the point of a scientific hoax is to fool the scientists, just as the point of an artistic hoax is to fool art critics and collectors. So you can't have them all in on the secret, or you would have no one left to fool.

 

[Scholar in training]

Without a shred of physical evidence to support YEC and mountains of evidence suggesting it is false. . .

Good so far.

I have no reason to blindly trust the words of a book. . .

Unless those words were not meant to be taken literally - but that is the question.

written by numerous unknown authors. . .

Not necessarily - and I don't see why the anonymity of the alleged multiple authors affects the validity of the text.

. . .and compiled and declared authorataive by a group of MEN.

Cry "sexism!" in the streets! Does the fact that the text was written by humans (and, oh my, even worse - MEN!) actually lessen how inspired it is?

 

[gluadys]

I came across this quote today, and I think its quite telling and applicable

“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, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

Isn't it interesting how an atheist who's an evolutionist has such a clear understanding of the impact of evolution on Christianity.

It is pretty ironic seeing a Christian agree that an atheist knows Christian theology better than Christians. Unfortunately, given the level of theological illiteracy in the church today, not surprising. Bozarth makes the elementary error of equating "original sin" with "first sin".


Original sin, the predisposition to sin that is part of human nature, obviously exists in all human beings. It is a fact of human nature with or without evolution, with or without an historical Adam. As long as humans sin, we need forgiveness and redemption, so the work of Christ is a necessity. Unless you can demonstrate that humans can overcome sin on their own, evolution in no way takes away the necessity and meaning of Christ's death.

 

[stumpjumper]

It is pretty ironic seeing a Christian agree that an atheist knows Christian theology better than Christians. Unfortunately, given the level of theological illiteracy in the church today, not surprising. Bozarth makes the elementary error of equating "original sin" with "first sin".


Original sin, the predisposition to sin that is part of human nature, obviously exists in all human beings. It is a fact of human nature with or without evolution, with or without an historical Adam. As long as humans sin, we need forgiveness and redemption, so the work of Christ is a necessity. Unless you can demonstrate that humans can overcome sin on their own, evolution in no way takes away the necessity and meaning of Christ's death.

Gluadys you are the only other person I have met on this site that knows what original sin actully is

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.

​

 

[vossler]

It is pretty ironic seeing a Christian agree that an atheist knows Christian theology better than Christians. Unfortunately, given the level of theological illiteracy in the church today, not surprising. Bozarth makes the elementary error of equating "original sin" with "first sin".


Original sin, the predisposition to sin that is part of human nature, obviously exists in all human beings. It is a fact of human nature with or without evolution, with or without an historical Adam. As long as humans sin, we need forgiveness and redemption, so the work of Christ is a necessity. Unless you can demonstrate that humans can overcome sin on their own, evolution in no way takes away the necessity and meaning of Christ's death.

Remember he said "the original sin" which actually is the same as the "first sin" and isn't "original sin" as to what you are referring.

But this is just a smokescreen to the real issue, which is the effect of evolution on Christianity.

 

[shernren]

It doesn't really matter what you say you believe. Maybe you havent dug into it deep enough to realize how contradictory the idea is.

How about if I tell you:

"It doesn't really matter what you say you believe, you're just a Kent Hovind nut who doesn't know anything about anything and haven't dug into the idea of creationism enough to realize how contradictory the idea is."

How offensive would that be? I can honestly say that I've been in the creationist camp before, I've seen the evidence, I've heard the viewpoints, in fact I first came onto the Creation vs. Evolution open forums as an ardent creationist out to smash the deceptions of Satan. Then I realized that sometimes neither God nor Satan fit as neatly into our boxes as we want them to.

To be perfectly frank I don't think you've ever been a theistic evolutionist. You may have been a Christian evolutionist, but to be a TE requires hard work. Yes, we know that what we believe may go against the "mainstream" of popular theology. Yes, we know that the Bible contains numerous references to Creation and the Fall and the Flood. Yes, we know that many evolutionists are crazy-hearted atheists out to turn the whole world (and beyond!) from God. So? Do you think we'd really be comfortable believing in evolutionism if evolutionism destroyed everything we believed in? Do you really think we'd defend something if it advocated that we burn half our Bibles? I personally think that to claim we are that (perhaps without realizing it, granted) is a personal insult of the highest order.

As Christians who believe in both the Bible and evolution we have developed worldviews and ideas that allow us to live consistent Christian lives, and whether or not you believe that our ideas are sound, I hope you'd at least try to learn what we believe and to respect that we believe it. It's not as if we're that different, you know. TEs do their quiet times and go to church and shout and dance praising God (well, maybe not the more conservative ones ) and drive cars and work under lousy bosses or study under crazy teachers and pay taxes and love and serve God just like other Christians. I know that sometimes creationists try to tar all TEs as "compromising worldly Christians" but I know many Christian young people here who've swallowed creationism whole and don't seem any holier for it. Which is not, obviously, to say that creationists are bad, but to say that in the end, origins theology simply isn't the all-consuming "let's-split-the-church-and-call-everybody-who-disagrees-hellspawn" issue people make it out to be.

 

[stumpjumper]

Remember he said "the original sin" which actually is the same as the "first sin" and isn't "original sin" as to what you are referring.

But this is just a smokescreen to the real issue, which is the effect of evolution on Christianity.

Do you honestly think that all the theologians who have contemplated and studied scripture and God's action in the world would not have understood the implications of evolution?

Look in Genesis, does it ever say that the world was created perfect? It says good. This perfection is a Greek concept and was brought in with the doctrines and can not be found in scripture. The early Christians synthesized scripture with Greek teachings and it influences Christianity to this day. The Greeks thought there were two worlds the perfect/spiritual world and the material/imperfect world. To the ancient Hebrews there was just one world and it was good not perfect and we could find God in that world. Original sin is our estrangement from God and it is universal and and it is what was reconciled on the cross. Jesus dove down into the depths of humanity and emerged with the tree of life.

 

[shernren]

And vossler, an atheist has about as much authority to speak on what Christians believe and how their faith works as a five-year-old has telling me about the chemistry of ice-cream. Are you going to take the word of a single evolutionist who not only has never been a Christian but is violently opposed to Christianity ... or the words of many evolutionists who are actually (gasp! shock!) Christians and living publicly consistent (well, as consistent as people with original sin can manage) Christian lives?

 

[vossler]

And vossler, an atheist has about as much authority to speak on what Christians believe and how their faith works as a five-year-old has telling me about the chemistry of ice-cream. Are you going to take the word of a single evolutionist who not only has never been a Christian but is violently opposed to Christianity ... or the words of many evolutionists who are actually (gasp! shock!) Christians and living publicly consistent (well, as consistent as people with original sin can manage) Christian lives?

I certainly won't argue your point about an atheist and his authority to speak on what Christians believe. My point wasn't about authority, but about how he accurately saw the issue, it wasn't meant as something to cite as gospel, it just was ironic how even an atheist saw the issue rather clearly. Hey even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while.

 

[gluadys]

I certainly won't argue your point about an atheist and his authority to speak on what Christians believe. My point wasn't about authority, but about how he accurately saw the issue, it wasn't meant as something to cite as gospel, it just was ironic how even an atheist saw the issue rather clearly. Hey even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while.

But he is not seeing it clearly at all. He is attacking Christianity at what he thinks is a weak spot, but he doesn't know Christian theology, so he errs, both on the subject of original sin and on the implications of evolution for the atonement.

If you think he is seeing it clearly, I would check your spectacles.

 

[vossler]

After coming across Bozarth's last quote I got to searching what else he says, here's another quote to muse:

“Christianity is - must be! totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul against the theory of evolution.”

G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 19

If you take out the , fair or foul I would agree with his assessment.

 

[vossler]

Or how about this one:

“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”

G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30