Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[stumpjumper]

Quantum Flux I think you should look up Origen, Philo especially his On Allegory, and St. Jerome. Here was a quote from Philo: "It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in a space of six days or in a space of time at all."

St. Jerome also has some good writing on the topic but I'm afraid it will all fall on deaf ears.

 

[QuantumFlux]

I wont deny it, it's not for me to judge whether you are christian or not. Remind me alot of mormons, your doctrine is all screwed up, but if you believe Jesus redeemed you then i wouldnt say you arent. I just have a hard time placing the God of the bible into an evolution view point.

If you wish it to be considered bashing so be it, but i criticise because you may think you have all the facts but when philosophy is brought up, it breaks down. You have a God that cares more about building stuff than he does love. Funny that your quote from st. jerome says that it is foolish to think that it was created in any time at all, considering you think the exact opposite. I know that there have been people through out time to question whether Genesis is literal or not, but the majority of readers have always taken it literally. Which says in your philosophy that God was being deceptive to everyone before our time.

I'm actually glad people are leaving this thread, I believe we have beat our points to death.

 

[Mikecpking]

I wont deny it, it's not for me to judge whether you are christian or not. Remind me alot of mormons, your doctrine is all screwed up, but if you believe Jesus redeemed you then i wouldnt say you arent. I just have a hard time placing the God of the bible into an evolution view point.

If you wish it to be considered bashing so be it, but i criticise because you may think you have all the facts but when philosophy is brought up, it breaks down. You have a God that cares more about building stuff than he does love. Funny that your quote from st. jerome says that it is foolish to think that it was created in any time at all, considering you think the exact opposite. I know that there have been people through out time to question whether Genesis is literal or not, but the majority of readers have always taken it literally. Which says in your philosophy that God was being deceptive to everyone before our time.

I'm actually glad people are leaving this thread, I believe we have beat our points to death.

Its looks to me these pointless discussions only cause alienation and is hardly bringing up a spirit of unity. Many people are more concerned with 'why' rather than the 'how' of the creation story in order to transmit the gospel without alienating the rational minded at large.

 

[stumpjumper]

I wont deny it, it's not for me to judge whether you are christian or not. Remind me alot of mormons, your doctrine is all screwed up, but if you believe Jesus redeemed you then i wouldnt say you arent. I just have a hard time placing the God of the bible into an evolution view point.

It baffles me when people say things like this. You have a hard time placing the God of the Bible into an evolution viewpoint because you have never considered what an accurate exegesis would entail. If you want to be accurate you need to understand the style of writing and what mythical and allegorical writing at the time meant. Myth does not mean completely fictional.

Here's a decent article about John Haught
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/006/3.52.html

Here is a review of God After Darwin a book that might do you some good.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2018

But since you stand by your claim that you feel that TE's are not really Christians this is my last post to you. Good day.

 

[Scholar in training]

You have a God that cares more about building stuff than he does love.

How can love exist unless "stuff" is built that can be loved?

Funny that your quote from st. jerome says that it is foolish to think that it was created in any time at all, considering you think the exact opposite. I know that there have been people through out time to question whether Genesis is literal or not, but the majority of readers have always taken it literally. Which says in your philosophy that God was being deceptive to everyone before our time.

It says no such thing, and I believe you are dangerously close to commiting a bandwagon fallacy.

Do you believe that God misled the post-exilic Israelites because most or all of them believed that God is one person, not three? Was the error in God's nature or in their interpretation?

 

[Scholar in training]

Here's a decent article about John Haught
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/006/3.52.html

Process theology? I can understand a Christian accepting evolution, but evolution itself does not alter core Christian doctrine. To accept process theology is to venture into unorthodox territory.

 

[theFijian]

But since you stand by your claim that you feel that TE's are not really Christians this is my last post to you. Good day.

The attempts to build cordiality in the thread here will always be threatened by newbies coming in all guns blazing not stopping to think aout the damage they will be doing to the relationship between YECs, OECs and TEs. Some of those involved in this thread are relatively new here and perhaps they will realise that their current attitude is counter-productive and less than edifying.

 

[Numenor]

I'm sorry, I'm really containing my laughter on this one. This question coming from someone who believes God had to have created the universe in billions of years. Talk about being contrained by time.

5 days shows that he took time to create if for us, yet the blink of the eye in the timeline in this case is creation,

Well I'm glad your misconceptions at least give you a giggle. You were the one who complained about God taking millions of years. Why did he need to waste 5 days preparing the earth for us? I don't believe God is constrained by time but you seem to think that millions of years is God wasting time whereas 5 days is not. You are projecting your own human concept of time onto God. I'm not going to complain about how long God should be taking.

the blink of an eye in the evolution timeline is mankind's existance.

Ps 103:15 - As for man, his days are like the grass

Perhaps you take issue with King David?

And what kind of image of God is a caveman? I dont think they are as incorrect as you would like to believe.

Not only are you burdened by misconceptions your understanding of the Doctrine of Man seems incorrect. How is our physical image in any way related to being made in the image of God?

That is complete backwards thinking. Evolution says that we evolved into humans based on the evironment around us. The Genesis story shows how he developed the earth for us instead of vice versa. It just doesnt make any sense to have the majority of the timeline of the universe exist without love. Mankind is the only being in the universe that can love, so why only have love exist in the universe for a geological blink of an eye?

What? So you think love only came into existance when Man did? Was God somehow lacking in love before he made us? This is seriously shaky ground you are on here, there was no deficiency in God that he needed to create us. There was, is, and always will be love and fellowship in the Trinity.

It just doesn't make sense. God is love and he made us to love him. this shows that God not only is love but he wants to be loved. Love is the most important thing to God, however through evolution that philosophy is utterly destroyed considering that love has only existed for the past few thousand years of a 5 billion year timeline.

I think I have shown how categorically wrong you are on this point, Love existed before we did. Not that evolution actually says anything like what you asserted anyway.

 

[stumpjumper]

Process theology? I can understand a Christian accepting evolution, but evolution itself does not alter core Christian doctrine. To accept process theology is to venture into unorthodox territory.

I personally accept some forms of process theology. Not David Ray Griffin's view of a non-omnipotent God but more along the lines of John Haught. Some process theologies are unorthodox but not all and they also can provide a good theodicy for the EPOE.

This is the closest online article I have been able to find that closely lines up with Haught's view. http://www.quodlibet.net/stein-theodicy.shtml

I welcome your comments.

ETA: (To the YECs) You certainly do not need to accept process theology to be a TE it is just my personal choice.

 

[Scholar in training]

I personally accept some forms of process theology. Not David Ray Griffin's view of a non-omnipotent God but more along the lines of John Haught. Some process theologies are unorthodox but not all and they also can provide a good theodicy for the EPOE.

I believe the "problem" of evil can be solved from a conservative POV; I am not exactly sure what your view of God's eternality and omnipotence is, and the article's is vague, though I reject any notion that God changes or learns or is surprised over time. I think that the necessity of what we call "evil" (whether it is or is not in actuality evil) may produce a greater good. Calamity is probably a better word. Now, calamity through "natural" disasters (though I would not call them entirely natural; I believe that God causes, effects, and is present in many everyday occurances) is necessary because the world would be worse off without a type of calamity. I do not mean to sound macabre, but as someone on another forum pointed out, earthquakes, for instance, keep nutrients from settling on the sea floor by moving them to upper land masses, lightning provides nitrogen for the planet, and hurricanes help prevent heat from building up around the equator. Without these things happening, the world would be worse off as a whole, and in that sense they do serve a greater good. Arguing for another world, then, a "better" world is rather pointless, and would require a much less rational existence. So, I believe that the question primarily answers itself, and is compatible with a type of conservative Christianity.

That said: I do believe that there is a better country waiting for us. We do not live in the best of all worlds. Death has its purpose, in some way; but it is certainly not ideal. As for the article, it is obviously liberal. I think that it is correct when it says that God suffers with us (God is infinite, and so when he causes his creation to suffer - always out of necessity, per Lamentations 3:33, never out of ignorance or impotence, as some process theologians may be wont to assert - he is by extension suffering with us). I agree to an extent that God lets us run the show; that is a requirement of free will. However it is foolish to deny that God plays a great role in our existence; where we live, who our parents are, what genes we have, etc. I believe that God controls those things and others overall. To what extent exactly - I of course can never know. I think that the article is closer to conservatism than other conceptions of process theology, but I do think that it places too much focus on the natural world and not enough on God's presence and action in the world.

 

[stumpjumper]

To what extent exactly - I of course can never know. I think that the article is closer to conservatism than other conceptions of process theology, but I do think that it places too much focus on the natural world and not enough on God's presence and action in the world.

From what you wrote I am not sure if we differ significantly in our POVs. You seem to follow an Irenaean Theodicy from what I can gather and with which I am in agreement. I personally, find a process theology (although my own is probably one of the more conservative of process theodicies) to be more compatible with evolution and our view of the natural world.

I do not believe that God changes over time and I do not deny omniscience. I do believe that the universe is evolving towards God and I follow a more or less panentheistic conception of God in which the world is God's body. I believe that the world is evolving towards a panentheistic view, to be exact. To me you can find this in the "new heavens and new earth". Also, if you look up Psalm 139 you will see God present in our world and obviously Jesus' statement that the Kingdom of God is among us.

I do find that a process model makes the most sense out of an evolutionary history. In particular the emergence of adverse genes and things such as cancer. These can be covered by an Irenaean theodicy but I personally like Haught's view. But, there are some very bad process models out there.

 

[shernren]

I would agree that process theology is probably the best way to understand evolution, but somehow I feel that it is too close to open theism for my liking. How exactly is the line drawn between the two? It also seems peculiarly close to deism; however, perhaps one way to look at it is that once there were humans who could worship God, God started intervening into the physical universe supernaturally for the sake of those who worship Him.

But I'm not sure how wise it would be to continue such meditations and explorations among people who compare us to Mormons. Hmmmmm.

 

[stumpjumper]

I would agree that process theology is probably the best way to understand evolution, but somehow I feel that it is too close to open theism for my liking. How exactly is the line drawn between the two? It also seems peculiarly close to deism; however, perhaps one way to look at it is that once there were humans who could worship God, God started intervening into the physical universe supernaturally for the sake of those who worship Him.

But I'm not sure how wise it would be to continue such meditations and explorations among people who compare us to Mormons. Hmmmmm.

In some ways a process theology skirts close to open theism but Haught's as well as Karl Rahner's version do not. Funny you should say that it is close to Deism because I think it is very far from Deism in that in process theology God is active in and suffering with creation. I always thought the Reformed Catechism was close to Deism in how it lays out the relationship between God and man.

But you're right not the best forum

 

[QuantumFlux]

Well I'm glad your misconceptions at least give you a giggle. You were the one who complained about God taking millions of years. Why did he need to waste 5 days preparing the earth for us? I don't believe God is constrained by time but you seem to think that millions of years is God wasting time whereas 5 days is not. You are projecting your own human concept of time onto God. I'm not going to complain about how long God should be taking.

I'm sorry, did you read what I wrote? The 6 days signifies that he spent time on creation, that it wasnt just a whimsical decision to create the earth. billions of years shows that he spent more time building than he did loving. It not wasting 6 days, it had a purpose and 6 days is nothing compared to how long he has loved us.

Ps 103:15 - As for man, his days are like the grass

Perhaps you take issue with King David?

I'm sorry, could you try taking that alittle more out of context? David was obviously talking about how short our lives are compared to the history of man, he most certainly was not talking about the life of the species of man. Is this how you read your bible? making it into whatever you want?

Not only are you burdened by misconceptions your understanding of the Doctrine of Man seems incorrect. How is our physical image in any way related to being made in the image of God?

Who said anything about the physical image of a caveman? According to evolution, early man was little more than an animal, only following instincts. It was a good long while before they crafted their first tools and showed any difference between them and other animals.

What? So you think love only came into existance when Man did? Was God somehow lacking in love before he made us? This is seriously shaky ground you are on here, there was no deficiency in God that he needed to create us. There was, is, and always will be love and fellowship in the Trinity.

Still trying to figure out if you actually read what I wrote, and also calls into question your biblical knowledge in this statement. God created us to love him, so what was there to love him before? The angels, I suppose but their love is little compared to ours.

Also throughout the Isrealite and Hebrew history they had a problem with polytheism. Even in Genesis, God refers to himself as "we" and the hebrew word in genesis that is translated God is also the hebrew word for gods (plural). Even dispite that, the prophets still knew that God was one. He showed very quickly in history that he was one yet many.

I'm not placing mankinds love above God's in anyway, but I am putting it above all of his other creations. Which means that there was nothing to love him back until mankind came along only several thousand years ago in a Billion year old universe. So we have billions of years where he is creating and creating and then at the very end he decides for a split second of geological existance there will be these creatures that love him.

I think I have shown how categorically wrong you are on this point, Love existed before we did. Not that evolution actually says anything like what you asserted anyway.

you may not have thought about the implications of love on evolution, but that certainly is what it is saying. "Survival of the fittest" was the order of things until mankind came. Where is the love in that again? Why God would create the universe to destroy itself is beyond me. He made the lions to kill and the vultures to pick the bones of the dead and rotting. It's hard for me to buy that God would want creation to be so violent and morbid, which he would have to want it considering according to evolution, he made it that way.

Can't blame it on the fall because mankind wasnt around then, God would have had to just create the world as a violent, morbid place.

 

[QuantumFlux]

As for me being a newby and my posts being counter productive, truth is truth. I'm not here to make you like it.

For those who think I'm blind to the evolutionary theory, I did believe in evolution all of my life. It's hard not to in this dogmatic society where high schools make you think you're dumb if you doubt it. In essence, I was a theistic evolutionist. Then I realized my senior year in high school that all they were teaching was based on thousands of assumptions and passed off as facts. I also neglected to realize that evolution produced a violent existance. Even if we can choose other wise, God would have created it violent from the beginning.

So you keep your assumptions, and you trust in man's wisdom. I personally would rather follows God's "foolishness" over any of man's wisdom.

 

[theFijian]

As for me being a newby and my posts being counter productive, truth is truth. I'm not here to make you like it.

For those who think I'm blind to the evolutionary theory, I did believe in evolution all of my life. It's hard not to in this dogmatic society where high schools make you think you're dumb if you doubt it. In essence, I was a theistic evolutionist. Then I realized my senior year in high school that all they were teaching was based on thousands of assumptions and passed off as facts. I also neglected to realize that evolution produced a violent existance. Even if we can choose other wise, God would have created it violent from the beginning.

So you keep your assumptions, and you trust in man's wisdom. I personally would rather follows God's "foolishness" over any of man's wisdom.

If you are interested in conducting yourself cordialy and not being antagonistic towards your TE brethren please read my post in this thread here and specifically the links contained within it.

If you are interested in productive discussion with TEs then you need to ditch your faulty philosophical assumptions about evolution, your incorrect ideas of what TEs actually believe and the adversarial nature of your posts.

 

[QuantumFlux]

I have not stepped out of line. Just because I believe you are wrong doesn't mean I am being uncordial. I'm debating with everyone else here. I didn't ask anyone to reply to my first post but they did and I have every right to reply back. I have been arrogent at times but I have apologized, but I'm not going to back down and say there is room for evolution in a biblical view point.

You want to believe in evolution that teaches a violent existence from the begining, I'm not here to stop you. But I'm not going to let you deceive people into believe the bible aligns with the theory.

God created the earth perfect and a paradise. God did not create it evil and retributive and corrupt, we screwed up our paradise in the fall, it was not already screwed up when we got here.

oh, and I dont read web sites, I've said this before. Web sites can be made by anyone with a computer, and putting links to sites only tells me the answer is unresearched and that the person replying is doing nothing more than following the sites information blindly.

However, I did read the thread and I dont find it against Jesus' commands to say you are wrong. Jesus had no problem retaliating against the pharasee's questions and accusations and he was not at all concerned with their reaction to his truth. Loving your neighbor consists of giving the truth, it does not consist of worrying how the accept that truth.

 

[theFijian]

oh, and I dont read web sites, I've said this before.

The links were to posts on this selfsame website. And please accept my apologies, I haven't read every single post you've made on this forum so I missed what you had already said.

Web sites can be made by anyone with a computer, and putting links to sites only tells me the answer is unresearched and that the person replying is doing nothing more than following the sites information blindly.

I'm afraid you are making unfounded assumptions about people here. I don't doubt some people blindly posts links without checking what they actually say, in fact some people have posted links to parody websites in the past thinking that they actually backed up their own position! You don't really think that everybody who posts a link to a website hasn't bothered to research it's content do you?

However, I did read the thread and I dont find it against Jesus' commands to say you are wrong

Neither do I. You are wrong about your conslusions on evolution and wrong about what you think I and other TEs believe.

 

[QuantumFlux]

You are wrong about your conslusions on evolution and wrong about what you think I and other TEs believe

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. I haven't heard any response to why God would have his most loved creation only exist for a blink of an eye on the evolutionary timeline. Are you honestly telling me that he spent billions of years gradually forming the earth and the creators on it for us to only actually exist on it for a few thousand years?

Even if I were to accept that, look what he created. The violence of the animals, how they kill each other off and some scavenge the rot of other animals. It was and still is a corrupted world, there is very little you can say to contradict that idea considering the death and suffering of so many things during its evolution. You say that God made it that way, you can't say otherwise because mankind hadn't been around to have the fall happen.

All of romans is based on the fall, if you negate the fall you negate 70% of paul's teachings. You can symbolize it all you want, but Jesus didn't seem to take it that way either in his reference made in Mark 10:6. So maybe Jesus was deceitful? You can say he wasnt talking about mankind, but then life didnt even begin for billions of years, doesnt sound like the beginning to me.

But maybe Mark just made that up or Peter misheard him. Then you get to believe whatever you want and the bible becomes nonething more than good ideals.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry, did you read what I wrote? The 6 days signifies that he spent time on creation, that it wasnt just a whimsical decision to create the earth. billions of years shows that he spent more time building than he did loving. It not wasting 6 days, it had a purpose and 6 days is nothing compared to how long he has loved us.

How do you know billions of years were a waste of time?

Here are a few quick facts for you.

Elements heavier than helium do not occur spontaneously. They are produced by the fusion that fuels stars. So, using natural processes (and why would God not use natural processes, since he created them to be used?) God brings stars into existence in order to create heavy elements like oxygen, carbon, iron etc.

Heavy elements are necessary to life, so the creation of heavy elements is a necessary preliminary to creating and sustaining life.

The period of time necessary for a star to generate heavy elements is approximately 8-10 billion years.

Our solar system came into existence about 5 billion years ago.

The age of the universe as a whole is estimated to be 13.7 billion years.

13.7 billion - 5 billion = 8.7 billion years.

Looks to me that God rushed into creating a life-supporting solar system as soon as it was physically possible.


Of course, you could still say God didn't have to use natural processes. God could have shortened the whole process by using supernatural power instead of the natural processes he made. But then why make natural processes at all? And why take 6 days or create 6000 years ago instead of last Thursday?

To me, the miracle route raises more questions than it answers, and ends up with less certainty about both God and creation.

you may not have thought about the implications of love on evolution, but that certainly is what it is saying. "Survival of the fittest" was the order of things until mankind came. Where is the love in that again?

What does "fittest" mean to you? Strongest, cruellest? Why?

Does it never occur to you that "fittest" could be equivalent to "most caring" and "most cooperative"?

Why God would create the universe to destroy itself is beyond me. He made the lions to kill and the vultures to pick the bones of the dead and rotting.

And when lions cull the herd, the herd becomes healthier and more fit. Ever plant a garden? Don't you do the same when thinning sprouts? As for vultures, would you really rather have decaying meat just lying around? Do you not remove the garbage from your house regularly? Everyone has their chores to do, including vultures.