Why Has Evolution Gained Popularity With Christians?

[LewisWildermuth]

Neither quantum physics or biomechanics support evolution in any way shape or form, nor do they contradict the Genesis description of how God created the world. Do any of those discoveries cause us second guess or question the accuracy of what is written in the Bible? No, therefore they are not applicable to this discussion...

The same nuclear reactions that powers the sun and our power plants are the same that are used to show the universe and Earth are old.

The Bible specifically mentions the beginning and never mentions evolution. I don't understand how any Christian could know that and still believe in the theory of evolution. I would be scratching my head...alot.

The Bible specifically mentions rabbits chewing cud.

Plus, I am pretty sure that Bible was not written just for goat herders...

That is what the Hebrew people were throughout most of history...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Neither quantum physics or biomechanics support evolution in any way shape or form, nor do they contradict the Genesis description of how God created the world. Do any of those discoveries cause us second guess or question the accuracy of what is written in the Bible? No, therefore they are not applicable to this discussion...

The Bible specifically mentions the beginning and never mentions evolution. I don't understand how any Christian could know that and still believe in the theory of evolution. I would be scratching my head...alot. Plus, I am pretty sure that Bible was not written just for goat herders...

There has been a great deal of discussion over the last 20 years with reference to the logical consequences of QM.
see:
The Tao of Physics
The Dancing Wu Li Masters
Quantum Reality : Beyond the New Physics

etc

all of which does contradict much of what the Bible says. i think the only reason you say that QM doesn't interact with your faith in the same destructive way as does darwinian evolution is that most Christian's science remains fixed pre-20thC in the days when logical positivism ruled the metaphysics of science, especially conservatives. most people i know in church are simply unaware of these kinds of books and arguments.


....

 

[SonSeeker]

I have always wondered, just what this has to do with anything? What do you think this is going to mean to someone who accepts evolution based on evidence? Do you think that TE's look at Darwin as some Christ like figure?

TE? I do think that evolution as the explanation of how the world began has become a false religion of its own. Also, it impossible for someone to say they believe the scientific evidence of an evolutionary beginning because there is none. Past "evidence" has proven to be wrong by secular scientists who do not worship this doctrine. Even Einstein didn't believe there was scientific evidence to prove evolution was the way everything started, but he did believe in God.

 

[SonSeeker]

That is what the Hebrew people were throughout most of history...

So now the Bible was just written for the Hebrew's?

There has been a great deal of discussion over the last 20 years with reference to the logical consequences of QM.
see:
The Tao of Physics
The Dancing Wu Li Masters
Quantum Reality : Beyond the New Physics

etc

all of which does contradict much of what the Bible says. i think the only reason you say that QM doesn't interact with your faith in the same destructive way as does darwinian evolution is that most Christian's science remains fixed pre-20thC in the days when logical positivism ruled the metaphysics of science, especially conservatives. most people i know in church are simply unaware of these kinds of books and arguments.

You are right, probably most are unaware, but I am not one of them. Please explain how QM contradicts.

 

[88Devin07]

Evolution is a complete lie. And unfortunately, in many denominations of Christianity, Satan as sowed the lies into the hearts of Christians and convinced them that this lie is actually truth.

People today trust Science and Scientists, as well as so-called "evidence" more than they trust the Apostles, the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Post-Nicene Fathers. None of them even heard of Evolution and they all believed that creation was in a literal 6 days and we were literally created out of nothing...

Why should we be any more correct than the Christians of the days of the Apostles and Church Fathers and why should we be more correct than the 4,000+ years of Jewish believers who also believed it was literal?

Satan has twisted both Science and Scripture and made it to look viable and correct to many Christians searching for the truth... All people need these days, is to see the truth that is directly in front of them...

Another very common mistake that is made, is that we are correct and more Enlightened in our times than the Church Fathers, when that is completely incorrect. We are approaching the End Times, of which no one knows will begin. And thus, scripture is being fulfilled. The world is becoming more and more secular each day. People are claiming there is to be a revival before the end, but this is not true. The opposite is going to happen. In our days people's hearts and faith and love will grow cold. Both for Christians and Non-Christians. We may think we are enlightened but we are in fact being led astray. We must go back to the fruits and beliefs left to us by Jesus, the Apostles and the Church Fathers themselves...

In short, Evolution has gained popularity among Christians because of the following:
-Satan has twisted Scripture and Science and has made it appear as though Genesis is wrong.
-People think we are more enlightened than all other ages and thus believe we are recieving more true revelations than other ages.
-People think we are more enlightened than the Apostles and Church Fathers themselves.
-People are willing to trust their eyes more than they are Scripture. They'd rather trust Science and So-Called Reality more than Scripture.
-People are twisting Scripture just as Satan is, and are making it support their beliefs. And saying theirs is the only and correct interpretation.

But here are the real facts from not only the true Apostolic Church, but also the Apostles, the Church Fathers and thousands of years of Jewish believers...
Earth was created 6,000-12,000 years ago in 6 literal days.
Man has no descendants and was made from the dust of the Earth and the breath of life was given to him by God himself.
Man was created in the image of God and wasn't evolved from Apes.
The Earth is only 6,000-12,000 years old and Evolutionists/Scientists are twisting and misinterpreting information in order to conform to their beliefs...

Heck, we'eve gone from being 6,000 years old about 150 years ago, to being 4 billion years old 50 years ago, to 6 billion years old now...

We were 6,000-12,000 years old according to scriptural records, according to the first 1,000 years (AD) of Church Fathers, according to the Apostles and according to the very first 4,000 years (of existance) of God's people and prophets.

 

[depthdeception]

Evolution is a complete lie.

Well, since you say so...

People today trust Science and Scientists, as well as so-called "evidence" more than they trust the Apostles, the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Post-Nicene Fathers. None of them even heard of Evolution and they all believed that creation was in a literal 6 days and we were literally created out of nothing...

Apparently you haven't read a lot of the Fathers. Several openly suggested that the Genesis accounts should be interpreted non-literally.

Why should we be any more correct than the Christians of the days of the Apostles and Church Fathers and why should we be more correct than the 4,000+ years of Jewish believers who also believed it was literal?

People have been wrong about a lot of things for much of the history of the world. Just because they are wrong does not mean that they should be ignored. They just don't have as many facts available to them as we do today. So what? Whether we were instantly created out of thin air, or evolved over millions of years does not change the intended meaning of the Scriptures one iota.

Another very common mistake that is made, is that we are correct and more Enlightened in our times than the Church Fathers, when that is completely incorrect.

In terms of scientific knowledge, yes we are. There is no denying this. We have a better perspective on origins than they did. To deny this is terribly naive and misunderstands the nature of the issue.

In short, Evolution has gained popularity among Christians because of the following:
-Satan has twisted Scripture and Science and has made it appear as though Genesis is wrong.
-People think we are more enlightened than all other ages and thus believe we are recieving more true revelations than other ages.
-People think we are more enlightened than the Apostles and Church Fathers themselves.
-People are willing to trust their eyes more than they are Scripture. They'd rather trust Science and So-Called Reality more than Scripture.
-People are twisting Scripture just as Satan is, and are making it support their beliefs. And saying theirs is the only and correct interpretation.

A lot of opinion in here, but no much substance, sorry to say.

Heck, we'eve gone from being 6,000 years old about 150 years ago, to being 4 billion years old 50 years ago, to 6 billion years old now...

Hmmm, we've also gone from riding around in carts pulled by horses to visiting the moon in 150 years. Funny how that works... Knowledge is not--and moreover, is not meant to be--a static reality.

We were 6,000-12,000 years old according to scriptural records, according to the first 1,000 years (AD) of Church Fathers, according to the Apostles and according to the very first 4,000 years (of existance) of God's people and prophets.

But this is all interpretation. The Scriptures do not anywhere state that the earth is only 6-12,000 years old. You are mistaking your own personal, biased interpretation for what the Scriptures actually say (which isn't this).

 

[invisible trousers]

88Devin07, then why can't you provide a single piece of evidence which supports YEC?

And why does every single piece of evidence on earth point to evolution?

Appeals to ignorance are an essential staple to the YEC diet since they fear further knowledge will show their beliefs to be wrong.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Man has no descendants and was made from the dust of the Earth and the breath of life was given to him by God himself.

i think you mean no antecedents not no descendents.

Satan as sowed the lies into the hearts of Christians and convinced them that this lie is actually truth.

show me where in Scripture there is an expectation that Christians can be deceived by Satan as you propose. rather the whole tenor and specific verses clearly teach that Christians are not part of the kingdom of darkness but are adopted children of God who by the Holy Spirit can see clearly, at least in part.


.....

 

[Critias]

Have you read that when Jesus comes to judge that many will claim to be His children and come to Him professing that they have done works in His Name and He will tell them 'I never knew you.' ?

Have you read where Paul said 'you started with the Spirit and now have given away to false teachings'?

Have you read that when the Word of God has been planted, Satan comes to take it away?

 

[Critias]

88Devin07, then why can't you provide a single piece of evidence which supports YEC?

And why does every single piece of evidence on earth point to evolution?

Appeals to ignorance are an essential staple to the YEC diet since they fear further knowledge will show their beliefs to be wrong.

I present the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, as my evidence that God created in six days. You may mock, but I would think twice about doing so.

 

[MC1171611]

show me where in Scripture there is an expectation that Christians can be deceived by Satan as you propose. rather the whole tenor and specific verses clearly teach that Christians are not part of the kingdom of darkness but are adopted children of God who by the Holy Spirit can see clearly, at least in part.
.....

2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

2 Cor. 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

How about every time the Bible says "Be not decieved"? that proves that Christians can be decieved. If you want, I can give you the references.

 

[PaladinValer]

About spiritual things, those are about.

Worldly things are an entirely different matter.

Fallacy of Equivocation, everyone's favorite it seems -_-

 

[rmwilliamsll]

2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

2 Cor. 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

How about every time the Bible says "Be not decieved"? that proves that Christians can be decieved. If you want, I can give you the references.

it is not simply a matter of being deceived, you are talking about generations of Christians accepting TofE as consistent with their Faith. it is more like being under the influence of Satan as a permanent condition, which is exactly what:

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;


what you are doing is making an epistemological claim.
that Christians who believe that evolution is true and that good evidence exists for it are noetically deceived. i see no difference between this claim and the old claim that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil to deceive or to test Christians faith. What this ends up doing is confusing the knowledge of the physical world and the knowledge of the spiritual world and the means to gain either. If you say that this verses which clearly are talking about spiritual knowledge (knowing that Jesus is the Messiah) are also about physical knowledge (how old is that piece of wood) then you are introducing all the problems of the supernatural back into the physical epistemology.

Decartes demon returns in Christian garb.


.....

 

[88Devin07]

And BTW, just for the record, I'm not judging anyone, because I too am a Protestant and I was once was as many of you are now. I used to believe I knew more than the people who came before me, I didn't put any emphasis nor cared about the church fathers. I believed we are more enlightened than ppl before us. I was changing from OEC to YEC, etc...

 

[PaladinValer]

Evolution is a complete lie.

And no proof given throughout the entire thread.

And unfortunately, in many denominations of Christianity, Satan as sowed the lies into the hearts of Christians and convinced them that this lie is actually truth.

Darwin was an Anglican. He attended seminary, and he even attributed God to being behind what he observed. That's the mark of the Devil? You give Satan far too little credit.

People today trust Science and Scientists, as well as so-called "evidence" more than they trust the Apostles, the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Post-Nicene Fathers.

Fallacy of Appealing to (false) Authority. The Fathers dealt with religious things, not worldly. St. Augustine of Hippo himself once said that, if the Bible were ever wrong, it was due to either his misinterpreting it or his lack of some knowledge (bingo!) that is relevent.

or a None of them even heard of Evolution and they all believed that creation was in a literal 6 days and we were literally created out of nothing...

Because the theory wasn't around until Darwin, so they never had the chance. If they did, what then? There's the error here, which makes this argument void.

Why should we be any more correct than the Christians of the days of the Apostles and Church Fathers and why should we be more correct than the 4,000+ years of Jewish believers who also believed it was literal?

Literal why however? The very fact that TEs accept all the doctrinal and dogmatic results of the Creation story in Genesis proves that a literal reading isn't necessary to get the theology correct.

They never knew of the idea, and for anyone to argue like this is to invite folks to simply ignore it as it is illogical and void of merit.

Satan has twisted both Science and Scripture and made it to look viable and correct to many Christians searching for the truth.

Oh yes, blame it always on the Devil. Gotta have that scape goat for everything...

All people need these days, is to see the truth that is directly in front of them...

Then why not look then?

Another very common mistake that is made, is that we are correct and more Enlightened in our times than the Church Fathers, when that is completely incorrect.

We are more intelligent and enlightened actually. Why don't you actually learn some history, please.

We are approaching the End Times, of which no one knows will begin.

Contradiction.

And thus, scripture is being fulfilled.

In terms of what? I've heard that from chiliasts so many times, my head spins.

The world is becoming more and more secular each day.

Then might I suggest leaving the US and living with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew II?

People are claiming there is to be a revival before the end, but this is not true. The opposite is going to happen. In our days people's hearts and faith and love will grow cold.

Because people are tired of the old, illogical arguments by the thankfully shrinking masses of anti-intellectualites. And the very fact that intellectuals are, on average, more orthodox than non-intellectuals, it is a safer bet to be an intellectual than not.

Both for Christians and Non-Christians. We may think we are enlightened but we are in fact being led astray. We must go back to the fruits and beliefs left to us by Jesus, the Apostles and the Church Fathers themselves...

Same logical fallacies.

In short, Evolution has gained popularity among Christians because of the following:
-Satan has twisted Scripture and Science and has made it appear as though Genesis is wrong.

You haven't even a clue what the theory of evolution even states, so this is completely void

-People think we are more enlightened than all other ages and thus believe we are recieving more true revelations than other ages.

History shows we are.

-People think we are more enlightened than the Apostles and Church Fathers themselves.

In secular means, yes we are. Then again, TEs don't think they are better than the Fathers of the Apostles in terms of spiritual matters. If you really think that, then you couldn't be more mistaken.

-People are willing to trust their eyes more than they are Scripture.

People trust what has been proven, both logically and impirically.

They'd rather trust Science and So-Called Reality more than Scripture.

Fallacy of Equivocation.

-People are twisting Scripture just as Satan is, and are making it support their beliefs. And saying theirs is the only and correct interpretation.

The very fact that TEs are doctrinally and dogmatically correct in what the Creation stories say proves you wrong, again.

Quit portraying yourself something you are not. There are EOs on CF who are TEs and the only thing the Eastern Orthodox Church asks of its believers in terms of Creation is that God is the source of it and it occurred out of nothing. That's it. If God Creates through evolution, God is still logically the source of said Creation. And since evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, it needn't worry about the second part of our little Lemon Test either.

You do a great disservice to EOs and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Calminian]

Sorry. No, we cannot determine that the man was miraculously healed. We can determine that he now sees and that there is no natural means by which he came to see.

You’re are almost there. If we did not have personal testimonies (or at least believe them) scientists would simply conclude he could always see. By assuming no miracles have happened they would be forced into a wrong conclusion.

No, I am saying the biblical author held that view. Inspiration means the author was writing because s/he was moved to do so by the Holy Spirit. It does not mean the author was taking dictation. The author writes from within his/her world-view. Recognizing that saves scripture from foolish allegations of falsehood, such as that it teaches the earth is flat.

If the author conveyed a flat earth (which is preposterous) then the H.S. superintended that error and was therefore in error Himself. The doctrine of inspiration isn’t going to get you out of this mess. You can’t just say all the errors in the Bible are of men while all the true stuff is of God. This destroys the doctrine of inspiration.

I make no atheistic pre-suppositions since I am not an atheist.

This is another fallacy. One does not have to be an atheist to share atheistic presuppositions about origins.

Of course creationists don't claim to believe this. But it is the logical conclusion of what they say they believe. And I have never heard them offer an alternate explanation. You are the one saying God restored the earth after the flood. If, in that restoration, God did not do as I said, what do you think happened? Why can we not find any evidence of a global flood?

You simply don’t understand what creationists are saying. There is evidence of a global flood, but without proper presuppositions it can’t be recognized as such. You act as if presuppositions don’t matter. Now being that I’m not a scientist I can’t get into specifics. I’ll leave that to my more scientific brothers.

If one presupposes a miracle one cannot do science. All science is built on the presupposition that the conclusion the evidence leads to is valid if and only if there was no divine intervention.

I’m not sure if this means one cannot hypothesize about how things might have happened based on the evidence and the information he has about the miracle. But one certainly cannot be dogmatic about the details. He can only be dogmatic about what is explicitly revealed in scripture. The details are merely something that can be fun to speculate about.

I quite agree that if God miraculously removed the evidence of the flood and miraculously planted evidence of an old earth, the scientific conclusions are wrong.

However, I have difficulty reconciling a God of such duplicitous character with the God who reveals himself to us in scripture. Such a God would not be worthy of worship.

This is a cop out. Even in your own illustration of the healed blind man, no planted evidence would have been needed to throw off the conclusions of naturalistic scientists. If scientists were to examine the wine Christ created, they would have certainly concluded it was much older than it was. There would have been no need for Christ to do additional miracles to make the wine look old. You’re simply clinging to talking points that need to be abandoned.

Regarding Crusader’s apparent disagreement with me I think some explanations are necessary. Creationists don’t believe miracles suspend natural laws for a time and then the laws are restored. This is what you've been implying and perhaps Crusader was taking issue with that. Miracles are additions to natural processes. Gravity and all other physical laws are present when God acts on something. Perhaps this AiG article might clear things up a bit. Materialist ‘defence’ of Bible fail I would guess that Crusader would agree with me on this point.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You simply don’t understand what creationists are saying. There is evidence of a global flood, but without proper presuppositions it can’t be recognized as such. You act as if presuppositions don’t matter. Now being that I’m not a scientist I can’t get into specifics. I’ll leave that to my more scientific brothers.

i wish we had a convenient label for this epistemological claim.
perhaps something like "the pixie dust element", where God needs to sprinkle pixie dust over you before you can see the evidence of the flood.

go back to your water into wine miracle.
did Jesus need to sprinkle pixie dust over the wine stewards eyes to make him taste wine where there had been water only minutes before?
no. that is the miracle in miracles. they occur in this physical world and are accessible via normal epistemological tools, or at least their effects are accessible.
then why is it that the evidence of this miraculous flood is not accessible without pixie dust?

why can't i get even one YECist to give me a piece of physical evidence of a worldwide flood about 6K years ago without restoring to this pixie dust argument?

Jesus didn't need to throw pixie dust into the eyes of the guests of the wedding at Cana for the evidence was the wine itself. what had to be done was explain that the miracle had occurred and how Jesus had intervened to do it.

so where is the wine-equivalent showing the flood?
or the wine-equivalent showing the 10K age of the earth?

we've seen the pixie dust thrown into everyone's eyes here, but never the jars of wine rolled out to prove YECism evidences exist.


....

 

[Calminian]

i wish we had a convenient label for this epistemological claim.
perhaps something like "the pixie dust element", where God needs to sprinkle pixie dust over you before you can see the evidence of the flood.

My arguments have been so simple I'm not sure where you're getting confused and therefore how to answer you. I've not said anything about a divine enablement to understand (which I think is what you mean by your pixie dust analogy). Perhaps you're getting me mixed up with someone else you've been dialoguing with.

go back to your water into wine miracle.
did Jesus need to sprinkle pixie dust over the wine stewards eyes to make him taste wine where there had been water only minutes before?
no. that is the miracle in miracles. they occur in this physical world and are accessible via normal epistemological tools, or at least their effects are accessible.

Nothing in my comments takes issue with this. Can you point out where I specifically contradicted this?

then why is it that the evidence of this miraculous flood is not accessible without pixie dust?

You're going to have to define pixie dust. If it's an analogy for presuppositions then everyone has their own form of dust.

why can't i get even one YECist to give me a piece of physical evidence of a worldwide flood about 6K years ago without restoring to this pixie dust argument?

What kind of evidence are you asking for? If you're asking for scientific evidence (a method of investigation that assumes a miracle has not happened) you're simply showing you don't understand the issue. If you are asking for scientific models that start with biblical presuppositions then there are plenty to be found on the AiG website.

Jesus didn't need to throw pixie dust into the eyes of the guests of the wedding at Cana for the evidence was the wine itself. what had to be done was explain that the miracle had occurred and how Jesus had intervened to do it.

RMW, I would simply suggest you read over this thread more carefully. The analogy I used had nothing to do with the guests at the wedding that experienced the wine first hand. Honest, read it over. It's not there.

so where is the wine-equivalent showing the flood?
or the wine-equivalent showing the 10K age of the earth?

Well let me explain that to you. If modern scientists were to examine a glass of newly supernaturally created wine they would be fooled into believing it was older than it was. How much more would they be fooled into thinking a supernaturally created world fully functioning with an echo system in tact was older than it was. But if those scientists would believe the One who told them these were miraculously created, they wouldn't be fooled at all. No pixie dust required. Just belief in the Word of God.

So I guess that's the answer you're looking for. The Word of God is your pixie dust. Believe it and you'll understand things you never understood before.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Have you read that when Jesus comes to judge that many will claim to be His children and come to Him professing that they have done works in His Name and He will tell them 'I never knew you.' ?

Science is not done "in His Name," it is just done so we can learn more about creation.

Have you read where Paul said 'you started with the Spirit and now have given away to false teachings'?

And TE's are not the ones trying to get the Bible to fit into the Enlightenment period thinking, they are trying to read it as the Spirit meant it to be read when it was originally inspired.

Have you read that when the Word of God has been planted, Satan comes to take it away?

Have you ever applied these verses to yourself? Or do the uncomfortable parts of the Bible only apply to others?


You seem to be getting close to calling the TE's Christianity into question... This is forbiden in the boards rules, please be careful.

 

[BlackSaab52]

germ theory is a good point to discuss because the Scriptures state that disease is caused by demons.

Mat 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto [him] his twelve disciples, he gave them power [against] unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.


clearly, literally, plainly


.....

Honestly, I fail to see how these verses make the connection between disease and demons. All those two verses say is that Jesus healed the sick and demon possessed and gave His disciples power to do likewise.