Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[stumpjumper]

People who end up doing work in any field related to biology or geology are stuck; they either dismiss creationism, dismiss the faith entirely, or pick another field.

I think this a very valid point and I wonder what Creationsists feel about Christians who work in the natural sciences. The natural evidence for an old earth and universe, evolution, and the fact that the universe operates under natural laws is very strong. My brother in law used to teach HS biology and has always attended Church regularly (he does environmental research now). Would a YEC consider him to spreading lies to our children?

This is the reason I started this thread to see why some Christians dismiss evolution. There are many parts of the Bible that no-one reads literally and puts into practice today. Why do some of the YEC's make such a distinction for evolution.

Critias: please respond to the last post that I directed at your statements. I was enjoying our discourse.

 

[Critias]

People who end up doing work in any field related to biology or geology are stuck; they either dismiss creationism, dismiss the faith entirely, or pick another field.

This blanket statement is actually false. I know quite of few people who have phd, md, masters, and college graduate level degrees in biology. These people have accepted creation in six days and continue to work in their field.

One micro-biologist friend of mine does not understand how anyone could accept a naturalistic view that non-life became life - naturally - and then gradually evolved into higher form of life; single cell to multicellular. And yes, she has been published in peer reviewed journals.

 

[seebs]

This blanket statement is actually false. I know quite of few people who have phd, md, masters, and college graduate level degrees in biology. These people have accepted creation in six days and continue to work in their field.

One micro-biologist friend of mine does not understand how anyone could accept a naturalistic view that non-life became life - naturally - and then gradually evolved into higher form of life; single cell to multicellular. And yes, she has been published in peer reviewed journals.

So what? Abiogenesis and evolution are different fields.

And, to be fair, there do exist some creationists who are able to stay in scientific fields for some time. Glenn Morton is perhaps one of the most famous examples, and he published serious papers discussing the issues that needed to be resolved.

 

[seebs]

These words I say to you, are they part of who I am? Or do they have nothing to do with me?

This is a false dichotomy. Your words are a thing you did. They are not part of you, and they do not have nothing to do with you.

Would it be wrong to say these are Critias' words? Or would you instantly call me an idolater, once again, because I have used the english word logos?

It would not be wrong, because we do not have a special proper noun "Word of Critias" which has meanings far beyond the meanings of its component words.

Let me give a comparison. If someone refers to "the Good Book", I generally assume he means "the Bible". The capital letters denote a proper noun. This is not some vague "respect"; it is a linguistic convention in English. If I tell a friend that I was reading the good book I borrowed from the library, that's not the same as saying I was reading the Good Book. The meaning is different.

That's the thing. Capitalizing letters doesn't just add emphasis or respect. It changes meaning. What is being said is not just a little emphasized, but qualitatively different.

If someone says that the good book is just another piece of writing, absolutely no different from any other, I may argue about the quality of his aesthetics. If someone says that the Good Book is just another piece of writing, absolutely no different from any other, I must argue with his theology.

If someone says that the Bible is the word of God, he is making the fairly unexceptional claim that the Bible is in some way a message from God to us. If someone says that the Bible is the Word of God, he is making the rather exceptional claim that it is equal to and part of God.

This is how English works. Capitalization cannot be used casually for emphasis, because it is used specifically to denote proper nouns.

Theou Logo is what God has given us to know Him.

This, I think, highlights our dispute. I came to know God through the Living Word, not through the Bible.

Seebs, it doesn't matter what I say. Even when I told you I don't see the Bible as God Himself, you called me an idolater anyways.

I do not believe I have called you an idolator. I have called a specific action, which I am not sure you perform, idolatry.

But let us check: Do you believe that the Bible is co-equal with God? Not just "from" God, not just "given by God", but equal with God?

So what does it really matter what I say to you. You are more insistent with being my accuser than my brother.

This is certainly not my intent. I look forward to finally resolving this dispute, possibly by waiting until we find out for sure in Heaven.

Did you know John taught that if people come and tell you things that are not inaccord to what John and the Apostles taught about God and Jesus that they are false teachers? Yet, when creationists follow what John and the Apostles taught,
you call us the greatest threat to Christianity and call them ignorant. Irony, isn't it.

Well, that's an interesting claim. What is it that John and the Apostles taught that you are following? I do not recall them teaching on the topic of science at all; I recall them only teaching the Gospel.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This blanket statement is actually false. I know quite of few people who have phd, md, masters, and college graduate level degrees in biology. These people have accepted creation in six days and continue to work in their field.

One micro-biologist friend of mine does not understand how anyone could accept a naturalistic view that non-life became life - naturally - and then gradually evolved into higher form of life; single cell to multicellular. And yes, she has been published in peer reviewed journals.

l know OEC Christians with serious scientific credentials and ongoing work in their fields, but have never met a YECist with the same. Personally i do not understand how anyone with a scientific education can believe that the universe is 6KYA, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any, just that my sample size is too small. But the cognitive dissonance that holding to such a belief-YECism and the evidence from literally dozens of fields that it is not true ought to give anyone pause to think about the issues. But human thought compartmentalization is apparently strong enough to wall off religious from professional worlds and allow such people to function. it would however be interesting to have such people post and discuss the issues here.

....

 

[seebs]

l know OEC Christians with serious scientific credentials and ongoing work in their fields, but have never met a YECist with the same. Personally i do not understand how anyone with a scientific education can believe that the universe is 6KYA, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any, just that my sample size is too small. But the cognitive dissonance that holding to such a belief-YECism and the evidence from literally dozens of fields that it is not true ought to give anyone pause to think about the issues. But human thought compartmentalization is apparently strong enough to wall off religious from professional worlds and allow such people to function. it would however be interesting to have such people post and discuss the issues here.

....

Agreed. Many people maintain very strict firewalls between their religious beliefs and their daily life.

 

[Critias]

I apologize for not responding sooner. I allowed myself to get caught up defending myself and creationist not being idolaters.

History is the story of our past. Whether one believes that God created Adam and Eve sometime during the middle stone age or whether the account of our past lines up with Genesis in more of an allegorical fashion, it is still talking about a history (or a story of things that happended in our past). All of the contingencies that Genesis states that God created are accepted by me, it is just how those things came about that are not specified. Why limit God in the manner of bringing these things about?

Is it limiting God when you are taking the position of believing what He has said? Do you understand what I mean? It is not our intention to limit God, but rather to take His word for what He has done.

Look at Genesis. It is obviously set up to tell a specific story about the past of the ancient Israelites. Genesis starts out with "In the beginning" Gen 1 (God created the world). Then it sets out the beginnings of the nations of theh world and then it shows the beginning of the nation of Israel in Gen 12. The story is told by taking these progression into account. You do not lose that by accepting a method of creation that goes into more detail than Genesis 1.

Maybe you are different than other TEs here, but those whom I have spoken with say these things didn't happen. Some assert Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses never existed, they are fictional characters. Yet, in the Gospels Moses is on the Mount with Jesus at His transfiguration.

Most TEs I have spoken with say Genesis 1-11 never happened as it is written, it is only a mythical story that may have some historical truths, but highly unlikely. Thus, the fall of mankind, in Genesis 3 didn't happen. Instead, we are born sinless and then we fall. Yet, David talks in the Psalms about being sinful even in his mothers womb.

Personally, there are some serious theological problems that arise when one takes the position that the fall of mankind never happened. That we are born sinless and then fall.

Well I think in many cases that is true. I also find the best way to express my beliefs is to lay them out in a manner in which they can be understood. Making a correlation between my beliefs and how they relate to our modern world is one of the first places I start.

I tend to take a different approach, but somewhat similar. Taking our need for redemption and pointing to Jesus Christ.

You know, it was Peter who said the best form of evangelism is not words, but the way we live our life for others to see. So, that tends to be my focus in evangelism. Unfortunately, I fail many more times than I would like to admit. I completely understand Paul's statement of trying to do good and yet bad comes out of it.

I find that a lot of these views are projected upon scripture by the reader. I am sure there are many parts of Genesis 1-3 that you do not take literally. Also, if you limit what *actually* happened to what is in scripture you are leaving an awful lot of things that I am sure you accept as fact out. Where does Genesis list the creation of protons, neutrons, quarks, dark matter, and dinosaurs. The existence of these are accepted not because the Bible states that God created them but because there is too much evidence to deny their existence.

The things that are not in Scripture, I tend to think God decided we didn't have a need to know. An example is that John didn't need to tell us everything Jesus did in His time here on earth. If John did, the world could not contain the volumes that would be written. I believe what is written is sufficient enough for understanding God and what He has done.

The Bible is about Jesus Christ, who is God Himself, and what He has done throughout history. Yet, it is many TEs here that state Jesus has not been working throughout history as the Bible tells it. Instead, we have Jesus working through myths and not history. This makes the naturalistic view quite compatible. Everything happens naturally, not God working through history.

Did the Apostles make do without knowing about protons and nuetrons? Did they make do without using a computer? Did they make do without studying biology and geology?

The world is a diverse place, people having different interests and focuses. God did not create a body that is all hands. It has feet, arms, legs, chest, head, fingers, etc. So why is it asserted that all Christians must be scientifically knowledgable or they won't be able to witness? It is asserted here that creationists are the greatest danger to Christianity today.

Is the world only made up of science minded people or are there people who have different interests? As I have said before, I think TEs have a great opportunity to reach those who are scientifically minded. I just don't see much of this going on here, instead it is open forum to creationists bashing. Sadly, this forum seems to support this and calling creationists non-believers.

Again, maybe you are different. Maybe you do use your science mind to reach those who are also science minded. Maybe God uses us differently and maybe God has chosen it that.

The six day account of Creation is a clear allegory. God is omnipotent and non-temporal. Time does not exist for God. Why would God bind himself to time and make himself impotent by needing six days to do something that he could set into motion in an instant? The Big Bang emerged as a thought from God's will in an instant. I find that method of origination much more compatible with an omnipotent God. The six days of Creation and resting on the seventh is man's method of putting into words the incomprehensible act of God's will and power. I'm sorry but I just don't understand why we should limit God's power in such a way.

Because God is omnipotent, are you stating that it would be impossible for Him to create in six days?

I don't think it is about God binding Himself to anything. I just think it was God's Will to do so. I also think it is quite probable that it wasn't a six day creation, but an instanteous creation and written as such because it would be too hard for man to understand an instanteous creation. Man has a much easier time understanding things that take longer.

It isn't about limiting God, it is about believing that when is says God created in six days that it was God's Will to create in six days and He did so. How could I possibly limit God? I am just believing what is written. I know you can see that is says six days took place for creation. And I know you don't believe it was meant a literal six days, but can you atleast agree that the text states six days?

That's fine. I'm not arguing against inerrancy. I'm just saying that it is not a lie to allow Creation to speak for God as well. I also do not find that because scripture does not list the actual mechanism for our creation that it is wrong. I just don't find the mechanism all that important. I also find nothing wrong with stating that Moses was putting an account of creation into print in a way in which it would be understood by a pre-scientific people. I don't think he was lying he just hadn't been to the Galapogos islands

You have to remember, we - humans - are part of creation. So, what you are stating is that we should be allowed to speak for God as well. Does this mean that everything we state, we are speaking for God? How about those who deny Christ, are they speaking for God? Of course not.

I still tend to follow Paul's teaching that Scripture was written because the Holy Spirit moved men to write it as He wanted it to be.

 

[Critias]

This, I think, highlights our dispute. I came to know God through the Living Word, not through the Bible.

The Bible played no role whatsoever about you learning of Jesus Christ?

 

[seebs]

The Bible played no role whatsoever about you learning of Jesus Christ?

Oh, it's been very useful. So have C. S. Lewis, ChristianForums, and Real Live Preacher.

But I was not interested in the Bible when I came to the faith; I did not consider it relevant at all to the questions I was asking, and I was rather surprised to discover, later, that the Bible's records of people interacting with God were similar to my own experience.

I was not persuaded about God by the Bible, but persuaded about the Bible by God. Faith and prayer came first; reading the Bible came later.

 

[Critias]

Oh, it's been very useful. So have C. S. Lewis, ChristianForums, and Real Live Preacher.

But I was not interested in the Bible when I came to the faith; I did not consider it relevant at all to the questions I was asking, and I was rather surprised to discover, later, that the Bible's records of people interacting with God were similar to my own experience.

I was not persuaded about God by the Bible, but persuaded about the Bible by God. Faith and prayer came first; reading the Bible came later.

Do you think that CS Lewis and your Real Live Preacher used the Bible to speak of Jesus Christ to you? Do you think they learned of Jesus through the Bible and then took that knowledge to teach?

You did say that you came to know of Jesus Christ without the Bible. So, did the Bible play a role in your knowing of Jesus Christ?

 

[seebs]

Do you think that CS Lewis and your Real Live Preacher used the Bible to speak of Jesus Christ to you?

Sometimes. It was not always central.

Do you think they learned of Jesus through the Bible and then took that knowledge to teach?

I think they learned of Jesus partially through the Bible, but primarily through knowing Him.

You did say that you came to know of Jesus Christ without the Bible. So, did the Bible play a role in your knowing of Jesus Christ?

Eventually, yes. It has played a role in giving me information about Him.

But without the Bible, it is quite possible to learn this:
* God loves us
* God wishes us to love God
* God wishes us to love others

Jesus, in the Bible, seems to give this as the core set of beliefs which are sufficient; "this do, and thou shalt live".

The Bible is helpful for instruction, but you can learn everything you need by prayer alone. God does not forsake His creations.

 

[vossler]

No, I am not. I am here to discuss origins theology. The majority of my participation in this forum over time is exclusively focused on the origins aspect. Occasionally, non-origins theology has significant impact on the discussion.

I do note that you have very carefully avoided retracting claims that the Bible is, in your wourds, "co-equal with God". This certainly helps understand your position.

It truly saddens me to see that you will not or cannot let this go seebs.

My participation in this thread isn’t for me to address accusations you made against me over a year ago. Yet, it’s clear that you are here to do just that, to once again accuse a brother of idolatry and/or blasphemy. Obviously, this is your prerogative, and I can’t stop you. I just don’t understand why it’s so important for you to reopen your attacks.

So, if you wish to continue accusing me of idolatry and/or blasphemy go right ahead, but I’m trying to live by this creed: 1 Peter 3:8-9

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

You see I’d much rather bless you seebs and thereby receive a blessing than to be lured into an argument with you.

So rather than jump into something that does nothing to edify and glorify Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, I will, again turn away from to your accusations and let it go.

Please don't challenge me again. If people really want to know all that was said in this discussion, from over a year ago, I will provide the link. I however don’t wish to discuss it anymore, I have long since forgiven you and the other TEs who attacked me back then, and to rehash this now would be, I hope everyone can see, very counter-productive.


http://www.christianforums.com/t725470-confessions-of-a-young-earth-creationist.html&page=11

This link starts on page 11, where the meat of the accusations begin, and goes on for at least 15 or so pages.

I pray this is the last time this needs to be addressed.

 

[Scholar in training]

It truly saddens me to see that you will not or cannot let this go seebs.

I don't think that seebs is accusing you of anything, and the verses that you have quoted in response to his arguments are rather insulting, and out of place. He is just pointing out that the very uneducated do confuse the Bible (word) with the Logos (Word), and since they are the same "word" that is why some people get them mixed up. By not clarifying this, you (who does call the Bible God's Word) do end up confusing some people.

 

[TimeCubeNinja]

Trying to reconcile evolution to creation is really pretty foolish. TErs want to fit the creaton story to what they believe is the solid science of evolution, but the truth is, the science of evolution is in no way solid. To understand why evolution is the accepted paradigm in science you need to realize that the scinece bigwigs are all atheistic humanists, and verry dogmatic ones at that. So, any scinetist who wants there research funded or wants there findings published, needs to tote the Darwinian line. Thats why so much of the published research seems to support it, because its the only thing that gets published. Anything, or anyone, critical of Darwinian evolution is instatnly labeled a religious nutjob and dismissed. The fact is thermodynamics forbids evolution, the fosil record has no evidence of evolution, and experiments time and again show macro evolution is not possible. But if a scientist says that, unless he is tenured, he dosn't get funded.

 

[stumpjumper]

I apologize for not responding sooner. I allowed myself to get caught up defending myself and creationist not being idolaters.

No problem. I'm online today and have some time.

Is it limiting God when you are taking the position of believing what He has said? Do you understand what I mean? It is not our intention to limit God, but rather to take His word for what He has done.

Maybe you are different than other TEs here, but those whom I have spoken with say these things didn't happen. Some assert Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses never existed, they are fictional characters. Yet, in the Gospels Moses is on the Mount with Jesus at His transfiguration.

Most TEs I have spoken with say Genesis 1-11 never happened as it is written, it is only a mythical story that may have some historical truths, but highly unlikely. Thus, the fall of mankind, in Genesis 3 didn't happen. Instead, we are born sinless and then we fall. Yet, David talks in the Psalms about being sinful even in his mothers womb. Personally, there are some serious theological problems that arise when one takes the position that the fall of mankind never happened. That we are born sinless and then fall.

I believe the literal history starts with Abraham. This does call into question the fall and our sinful nature and I agree it creates a problem. I do accept original sin and the need for a savior. This was one aspect of Christianity that can be hard to reconcile with evolutionary thinking. Genesis has us starting out perfect and falling. Evolution has our natural history the complete opposite. But when you look at what the sin of Adam & Eve actually was you can make a connection. The sin was a turning away from God by human beings. I have seen it argued that our endemic unbelief and doubts that we all have are original sin. There is a difference between actual sin and original sin. Original sin is something we can not help and we all commit. We all turn away from God at some point even the best of us. Here is John Haught's view of OS.

Original sin points not to some vague genetic flaw inherited biologically but to the much more serious contamination each of us contracts immediately simply by entering a world in which the banality and ugliness of evil are tolerated so easily. Original sin is a notion indicative not so much of our actual evil acts or of our willful neglect but of the intractable situation that has come to prevail as a result of the human family's cumulative indifference to its creative mission in the cosmos (this indifference includes not only our neglect of the imperative to create a just human community but also our failure to conserve and foster the wider diversity of the Earth community).

You know, it was Peter who said the best form of evangelism is not words, but the way we live our life for others to see. So, that tends to be my focus in evangelism. Unfortunately, I fail many more times than I would like to admit. I completely understand Paul's statement of trying to do good and yet bad comes out of it.

Well I agree with that. We all fall many times. My wife just told me that we are in charge of organizing the resettlement of a family from New Orleans. Hopefully, some good will come out of that.

The things that are not in Scripture, I tend to think God decided we didn't have a need to know. An example is that John didn't need to tell us everything Jesus did in His time here on earth. If John did, the world could not contain the volumes that would be written. I believe what is written is sufficient enough for understanding God and what He has done.

Well that I do agree with. After having read a few books about how to reconcile evolution with theology I took the POV that evolution was one of those things that was not neccessary to know about for our faith. There are some connections that need to be made of course such as OS, the origin of souls, and the geneology of Jesus. But, they can be answered.

The Bible is about Jesus Christ, who is God Himself, and what He has done throughout history. Yet, it is many TEs here that state Jesus has not been working throughout history as the Bible tells it. Instead, we have Jesus working through myths and not history. This makes the naturalistic view quite compatible. Everything happens naturally, not God working through history.

The only thing that the acceptance of evolution would do would be to relegate Genesis 1-11 to an allegorical myth of our origin. I still see God working through that history even if I cannot read about the specific details in Scripture. I see God as giving us a tremendous amount of freedom so that we could become something apart from God and be able to share in His love. God chose to make free creatures and evolution is a free process that allowed us to become something different from God.

So why is it asserted that all Christians must be scientifically knowledgable or they won't be able to witness? It is asserted here that creationists are the greatest danger to Christianity today.

I don't think that you need to have any knowledge of science to witness. What I do see as a bit of an obstacle to some people accepting Christianity are organizations like AIG that use Creation "science" to evangelize. What many people then think is that you have to accept a AIG's claims to be a Christian. We both know that is not true but many use it as a reason not to follow Jesus's teachings.

I find that the best way to go is synthesize what the world tells us about itself and what Scripture tells us about God. We might make mistakes on the first account but as long as we try to integrate what we believe to be true with what we know to be true we will be on the right track.

Because God is omnipotent, are you stating that it would be impossible for Him to create in six days?

I think Creation is an ongoing process that began instantaneously. What I find in the day by day account of Genesis though is an allegorical narrative. IOW, from the moment of the Big Bang God knew what would transpire and that humanity would emerge. I don't see how God actually separating the creation events into six 24 hour periods and resting on the seventh is even compatible with an omnipotent God. I view this as a way of putting the incomprehensible facts of our past into words that we can understand. I still find that the creation narrative is a wonderfull way to show how the God of Abraham is a personal God even if I do not take it literally.

I also think it is quite probable that it wasn't a six day creation, but an instanteous creation and written as such because it would be too hard for man to understand an instanteous creation. Man has a much easier time understanding things that take longer.

Well if you accept that the seven days could be an allegory about the method then I'm not sure if I see a problem with Scripture and evolution. Is it because it relegates people like Adam & Eve and Noah to mythical status. I do view them as myths but I have heard some TE's who still say that they are real people in history.

You have to remember, we - humans - are part of creation. So, what you are stating is that we should be allowed to speak for God as well. Does this mean that everything we state, we are speaking for God? How about those who deny Christ, are they speaking for God? Of course not.

I still tend to follow Paul's teaching that Scripture was written because the Holy Spirit moved men to write it as He wanted it to be.

I don't know I'll think about the first part. But we should follow what the Holy Spirit is telling us when we read scripture. Innerancy in writing is meaningless if we do not have inerrancy in reading and interpreting. In that way I view that the greatest truth about Scripture is what it can tell me about God and how that relates to my present life. In that way I believe that the greatest truth that we can find in Scripture is that God loves us even with our imperfections. The Holy Spirit can still guide us in the proper meaning of Scripture even if what we read is different that what was written.

 

[gluadys]

To understand why evolution is the accepted paradigm in science you need to realize that the scinece bigwigs are all atheistic humanists, and verry dogmatic ones at that.

You have documented this accusation?

 

[stumpjumper]

Trying to reconcile evolution to creation is really pretty foolish. TErs want to fit the creaton story to what they believe is the solid science of evolution, but the truth is, the science of evolution is in no way solid.

I think you should probably do a little more research on both the scientific claims behind evolution and theology before you make a claim such as "trying to reconcile evolution to creation is really pretty foolish."

I could give you some good Christian links if you are really interested.

 

[seebs]

It truly saddens me to see that you will not or cannot let this go seebs.

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

My participation in this thread isn’t for me to address accusations you made against me over a year ago. Yet, it’s clear that you are here to do just that, to once again accuse a brother of idolatry and/or blasphemy. Obviously, this is your prerogative, and I can’t stop you. I just don’t understand why it’s so important for you to reopen your attacks.

I am not accusing you. I do not know what you believe today.

I will state that the claim "the Bible is co-equal with God" is formal heresy, and idolatry. I do not know whether anyone currently holds that belief.

Please don't challenge me again. If people really want to know all that was said in this discussion, from over a year ago, I will provide the link. I however don’t wish to discuss it anymore, I have long since forgiven you and the other TEs who attacked me back then, and to rehash this now would be, I hope everyone can see, very counter-productive.

I provided a link already for people to look through.

Rehashing the accusations is not especially useful. However, understanding a core point of Christian theology, namely, that the Bible is not God, nor equal to God, is exceptionally useful and edifying.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Trying to reconcile evolution to creation is really pretty foolish. TErs want to fit the creaton story to what they believe is the solid science of evolution, but the truth is, the science of evolution is in no way solid. To understand why evolution is the accepted paradigm in science you need to realize that the scinece bigwigs are all atheistic humanists, and verry dogmatic ones at that. So, any scinetist who wants there research funded or wants there findings published, needs to tote the Darwinian line. Thats why so much of the published research seems to support it, because its the only thing that gets published. Anything, or anyone, critical of Darwinian evolution is instatnly labeled a religious nutjob and dismissed. The fact is thermodynamics forbids evolution, the fosil record has no evidence of evolution, and experiments time and again show macro evolution is not possible. But if a scientist says that, unless he is tenured, he dosn't get funded.

this is another installment in the evolution=atheism argument.
plus the "suppression of all other data"

i'd suggestion that the poster read a little Michael Ruse

....

 

[Critias]

I believe the literal history starts with Abraham. This does call into question the fall and our sinful nature and I agree it creates a problem. I do accept original sin and the need for a savior. This was one aspect of Christianity that can be hard to reconcile with evolutionary thinking. Genesis has us starting out perfect and falling. Evolution has our natural history the complete opposite. But when you look at what the sin of Adam & Eve actually was you can make a connection. The sin was a turning away from God by human beings. I have seen it argued that our endemic unbelief and doubts that we all have are original sin. There is a difference between actual sin and original sin. Original sin is something we can not help and we all commit. We all turn away from God at some point even the best of us. Here is John Haught's view of OS.

When did sin come into the world so that creation is held in bondage, even today? When did original sin happen?

Wasn't it Satan who said 'did God really say...' Same line is used by TEs today.

Well I agree with that. We all fall many times. My wife just told me that we are in charge of organizing the resettlement of a family from New Orleans. Hopefully, some good will come out of that.

I will keep you in my prayers that God uses you for His good in this endeavor.

Well that I do agree with. After having read a few books about how to reconcile evolution with theology I took the POV that evolution was one of those things that was not neccessary to know about for our faith. There are some connections that need to be made of course such as OS, the origin of souls, and the geneology of Jesus. But, they can be answered.

I see evolution as a contradiction to what is written in Genesis 1-3. Furthermore, it puts all of the New Testament writers into speculation because each touches on events within Genesis 1-11.

You do realize, that anything can be answered, right? Just because there is an answer does not mean it is the correct answer. I can be completely wrong on my approach to the Bible, but I tend to prefer the more conservative approach where I realize that I don't have the answers and rely on God to to show me the way.

I cannot help to see evolution as a self-exaltation of man. Man takes his soap box and tells everyone what happened in the beginning; things he never saw nor has evidence for. Now, mind you, the evidence I am refering to is abiogenesis and single cell to multicellular organism. What we do have is an abundant of fossils and many guesses of transitions. We also have varies scientists who have lied over the years to prove evolution. And you want me to trust them?

The only thing that the acceptance of evolution would do would be to relegate Genesis 1-11 to an allegorical myth of our origin. I still see God working through that history even if I cannot read about the specific details in Scripture. I see God as giving us a tremendous amount of freedom so that we could become something apart from God and be able to share in His love. God chose to make free creatures and evolution is a free process that allowed us to become something different from God.

Tell me how you know that Genesis 1-11 is an allegorical myth of our origin? Is because of what scientists say today, or because of Genesis itself? And if it is Genesis itself, lets talk about what specifically in Genesis makes you believe this.

I don't accept that God wants us to be apart from Him. I believe the work on the Cross was to draw us to Him as well as the countless acts throughout history that He has done to waken His people to turn to Him. I just cannot accept that God doesn't want us part of Him. I believe the Bible says be holy as God is Holy. We are to strive and be like Christ, not be different than Christ.

I don't think that you need to have any knowledge of science to witness. What I do see as a bit of an obstacle to some people accepting Christianity are organizations like AIG that use Creation "science" to evangelize. What many people then think is that you have to accept a AIG's claims to be a Christian. We both know that is not true but many use it as a reason not to follow Jesus's teachings.

I find that the best way to go is synthesize what the world tells us about itself and what Scripture tells us about God. We might make mistakes on the first account but as long as we try to integrate what we believe to be true with what we know to be true we will be on the right track.

Even if what the world (scientists) say is wrong? I have read some of Francis Cricks works as well as other notable scientists who support the theory that aliens created us. If science did go that way, would you suggest that we should adapt that to the Gospel message because it is what the "world" says? Granted it is an if statement, but it has some support within a smaller section of the science community.

I think Creation is an ongoing process that began instantaneously. What I find in the day by day account of Genesis though is an allegorical narrative. IOW, from the moment of the Big Bang God knew what would transpire and that humanity would emerge. I don't see how God actually separating the creation events into six 24 hour periods and resting on the seventh is even compatible with an omnipotent God. I view this as a way of putting the incomprehensible facts of our past into words that we can understand. I still find that the creation narrative is a wonderfull way to show how the God of Abraham is a personal God even if I do not take it literally.

It can be compatible because it is what He chose to do. By your statement of thinking it is not compatible, aren't you limiting God?

I find Genesis 1 to be about God who is all powerful and all knowing. I find Genesis 2 to be about a personal God who communes with man.

I believe that you have to accept a literal fall, whether you are an evolutionists or not, if you are going to uphold the redemption process of Jesus Christ, Biblically. Especially, in the light of Paul's teachings.

Well if you accept that the seven days could be an allegory about the method then I'm not sure if I see a problem with Scripture and evolution. Is it because it relegates people like Adam & Eve and Noah to mythical status. I do view them as myths but I have heard some TE's who still say that they are real people in history.

I am not sure if you caught what I said, but I think creation could have been instanteous and written in a six day for so that man could understand. If God created over billions of years, the Israelites could understand that it was over a vast amount of time. It wouldn't need to be said that it was "billions" it could have stated as a vast amount of time. Instead it is presented in six days and Exodus, by the very hand of God says He created in six days.

I think mankind is quite capable of understand a long length of time and is hard pressed to understand an instanteous creation. This was much of what Augustine talked about. He knew the ancient civilizations could understand creation better if there was more time involved.

I don't know I'll think about the first part. But we should follow what the Holy Spirit is telling us when we read scripture. Innerancy in writing is meaningless if we do not have inerrancy in reading and interpreting. In that way I view that the greatest truth about Scripture is what it can tell me about God and how that relates to my present life. In that way I believe that the greatest truth that we can find in Scripture is that God loves us even with our imperfections. The Holy Spirit can still guide us in the proper meaning of Scripture even if what we read is different that what was written.

What comes to mind is lean not on your own understanding, but on the Lord's. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can lead people to true understanding of the Bible?

Personally, I think the Holy Spirit has not changed His method of teaching to suit the times. I believe He has remained consistent throughout the ages. His teaching always remains the same, He doesn't change His message to suit what the world believes today. The message always remains the same.