Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Strathos]

I never claimed that Jesus was striving to teach science. However, if he believed events to be historically accurate and atheistic science contradicts him-then I choose to believe him instead of atheistic science.

BTW
Jesus' Parables are very well understood. They are unclear only to folks who don't take the time to read them and only vaguely might hear about them second and third hand.

Parables of Jesus

I was actually referring to Matthew 13: 10-17.

Anyway, one analogy I like to use is this:

When I was in Kindergarten, we were just learning about basic mathematics (addition and subtraction). At one point I asked my teacher what happens if you subtract a larger number from a smaller one (i.e. 8-9). She told me that you can't do that - it doesn't work.

Obviously this isn't true, and obviously the teacher knew this, but the reason she said that was because she didn't want to introduce concepts like negative numbers, which weren't considered important to know at that stage, and would only lead to further confusion and distract the class from what we were supposed to be learning. We had to understand the basics first.

If you look in the Bible, you won't see anything about atoms, germ theory, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, radiation, thermodynamics, chemical formulas, etc. Does that mean that God didn't know about these things? Of course not - He created them, after all. They just weren't considered relevant to the message He was trying to give us. He knows we would eventually figure out those things on our own. It's the same with evolution, at least in the way I see it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That seems reasonable, it seems like more of a warning about taking results for granted rather than any sort of argument against the TOE of which the writers fully accepted. BTW Does it occur to you why observations fit within the wider evolutionary theory?

ToE has wide explanatory power. It is an elegant theory, no doubt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which part of the Bible did Jesus write?

All of It.

 

[AV1611VET]

The hypothesis itself.

According to Wikipedia, finding rabbits in the Precambrian will not falsify the theory of evolution.

It will just start a yak session that will go on for decades and decades, and eventually get shoved under the carpet.

I've said this many times before, and it bears repeating here:

Evolution runs on the No True Scotsman Principle; and it has a dynamite PR department.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to Wikipedia, finding rabbits in the Precambrian will not falsify the theory of evolution.

It will just start a yak session that will go on for decades and decades, and eventually get shoved under the carpet.

Now if only there would be rabbits in the precambrian, we could see if that is correct.

I've said this many times before, and it bears repeating here:
Evolution runs on the No True Scotsman Principle; and it has a dynamite PR department.

I think you don't really know what the no true scotsman is about, because you're not using it correctly.

 

[Jimmy D]

According to Wikipedia, finding rabbits in the Precambrian will not falsify the theory of evolution.

It will just start a yak session that will go on for decades and decades, and eventually get shoved under the carpet.

I've said this many times before, and it bears repeating here:

Evolution runs on the No True Scotsman Principle; and it has a dynamite PR department.

Whatever. Any views on the OP?

 

[Radrook]

I was actually referring to Matthew 13: 10-17.

Anyway, one analogy I like to use is this:

When I was in Kindergarten, we were just learning about basic mathematics (addition and subtraction). At one point I asked my teacher what happens if you subtract a larger number from a smaller one (i.e. 8-9). She told me that you can't do that - it doesn't work.

Obviously this isn't true, and obviously the teacher knew this, but the reason she said that was because she didn't want to introduce concepts like negative numbers, which weren't considered important to know at that stage, and would only lead to further confusion and distract the class from what we were supposed to be learning. We had to understand the basics first.

If you look in the Bible, you won't see anything about atoms, germ theory, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, radiation, thermodynamics, chemical formulas, etc. Does that mean that God didn't know about these things? Of course not - He created them, after all. They just weren't considered relevant to the message He was trying to give us. He knows we would eventually figure out those things on our own. It's the same with evolution, at least in the way I see it.

The parables in Mathew that you say are vague are clearly understood.
True, Jesus did not teach science. But he did treat certain historical events as factual and your evolution idea requires that we view them as bogus. Which requires that we View Jesus as misguided, ignorant, or dishonest at worse. I personally trust Jesus more than I do atheistic evolutionists. Of course you are quite free to choose otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now if only there would be rabbits in the precambrian, we could see if that is correct.

You mean see if you're wrong?

You guys are the ones who say finding a rabbit in the Precambrian will falsify [biological] evolution.

I think you don't really know what the no true scotsman is about,

Then why did I refer to it as the No True Scotsman Principle, instead of the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

... because you're not using it correctly.

Oh, that's why.

I disagree.

 

[Jimmy D]

I personally trust Jesus more than I do atheistic evolutionists.

But do you trust yourself? You don't have to take anyone's word for what's been said in this thread, there is nothing in the TOE that you couldn't verify for yourself.. if you had the inclination.

By the way, do you trust Christian 'evolutionists'? I only ask as you singled out 'atheist evolutionists', is there even a difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever. Any views on the OP?

Ya ... have you got an hour?

Here's what the OP says:

So then why do so many people take this particular scientific theory as an affront to Christianity?

Because it's blasphemy?

Because Luke said Adam was the son of God (by creation), not Magilla Gorilla?

Because it means our Saviour is a great ape?

Because it means there was death before the Fall?

And I'm asked to take the stance: evolution is 'proven to my satisfaction'?

No way.

 

[Strathos]

The parables in Mathew that you say are vague are clearly understood.
True, Jesus did not teach science. But he did treat certain historical events as factual and your evolution idea requires that we view them as bogus. Which requires that we View Jesus as misguided, ignorant, or dishonest at worse. I personally trust Jesus more than I do atheistic evolutionists. Of course you are quite free to choose otherwise.

You totally missed the point of my analogy, didn't you? He wasn't misguided, ignorant, nor dishonest.

Let's take a look at another verse:

Mark 4:31 has Jesus stating that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds on Earth. This isn't true - various orchids from tropical rainforests produce much smaller seeds.

Jesus obviously knew this. But the people he was addressing lived thousands of km away from the nearest rainforest - they would have no idea what He was talking about if he mentioned those orchid seeds. So He used something they were familiar with. That doesn't make him misguided, ignorant, or a liar. He was just tailoring the message to the audience, without compromising its central point - the mustard seed was only used as an analogy anyway.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ya ... have you got an hour?

Here's what the OP says:
Because it's blasphemy?

Because Luke said Adam was the son of God (by creation), not Magilla Gorilla?

Because it means our Saviour is a great ape?

Because it means there was death before the Fall?

And I'm asked to take the stance: evolution is 'proven to my satisfaction'?

No way.

Thanks for the answer!

 

[Strathos]

Ya ... have you got an hour?

Because it's blasphemy?

They said the same about heliocentrism.

Because Luke said Adam was the son of God (by creation), not Magilla Gorilla?

Pay no heed to endless genealogies...

Because it means our Saviour is a great ape?

In body, not in spirit. Jesus' physical body was also made of atoms, do you deny this? Does being made of base, worldly atoms somehow degrade Him?

The entire point of God incarnating as Jesus Christ was to help teach us on a level we could better understand. He even died for us - if He was willing to suffer through that, why does temporarily existing in the body of an evolved ape seem like something He wouldn't be willing to do?

Because it means there was death before the Fall?

Even going by a strict literal interpretation of Genesis there still was, unless you think predators didn't eat meat, and herbivores didn't eat plants.

And I'm asked to take the stance: evolution is 'proven to my satisfaction'?

No way.

It's a hypothetical.

 

[Radrook]

You totally missed the point of my analogy, didn't you? He wasn't misguided, ignorant, nor dishonest.

Let's take a look at another verse:

Mark 4:31 has Jesus stating that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds on Earth. This isn't true - various orchids from tropical rainforests produce much smaller seeds.

Jesus obviously knew this. But the people he was addressing lived thousands of km away from the nearest rainforest - they would have no idea what He was talking about if he mentioned those orchid seeds. So He used something they were familiar with. That doesn't make him misguided, ignorant, or a liar. He was just tailoring the message to the audience, without compromising its central point - the mustard seed was only used as an analogy anyway.

The analogy between the mustard seed and evolution statement that we come from lower animals is a false analogy because they are dissimilar in a very essential way. They evolution Genesis creation concepts are clear contradictions that cannot be reconciled in the manner that the mustard seed illustration can.

Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

 

[Renee Tahass]

The talk here is just crazy talk.

 

[Radrook]

The talk here is just crazy talk.

Perhaps if it were totally atheistic it would seem more sane to you?

 

[Larniavc]

For instance, will rabbits in the Precambrian falsify biological evolution?

Yes.

 

[Radrook]

Yes.

I think that evolutionists would come up with some convoluted explanation as to how that specific rabbit wound up in that strata and became fossilized to the degree that it did. Most likely they would say they are working on the solution to the problem. A significant number would begin to question whether it is rabbit at all. Accusations of quackery would begin to be levelled and maybe even character defamation of the discovers would ensue if no viable explanation can be found. Look at the controversy over the dinosaurs soft-tissue discovery.

 

[Larniavc]

I think that evolutionists would come up with some convoluted explanation as to how that specific rabbit wound up in that strata and became fossilized to the degree that it did. Most likely they would say they are working on the solution to the problem. A significant number would begin to question whether it is rabbit at all. Accusations of quackery would begin to be levelled and maybe even character defamation of the discovers would ensue if no viable explanation can be found.

It's okay to think that.

 

[Radrook]

It's okay to think that.

Well, that's the way they reacted with the soft-dinosaur tissue discovery.