Why Has Evolution Gained Popularity With Christians?

[Calminian]

Yes, you do. You assume that when sight is miraculously restored to a blind man, it will have the effect that the man sees. And that when a paralyzed man is healed it will have the effect that he is able to stand, pick up his bed and walk. In principle, the miracles of creation and of the flood are no different. We cannot explain the mechanism by which they happened, but we can predict their effects on nature.

This failed to address my question. Could we know the man was miraculously healed merely by examining him afterward? —apart from testimonies??

Of course it can. Ever read the scientific reports on the miracles at Lourdes? Every claimed healing is subjected to rigourous scientific scrutiny. Only those for which no natural explanation can be found are officially listed as miracles.

Because a natural explanation cannot be found does not mean something is scientifically proven to be a miracle. The scientific method must always assume there have not be additions to natural processes. The minute you claim "miracle", you have abandoned the scientific method and moved to a philosophical opinion. This doesn't mean you're wrong it just means you don't believe science is the correct tool for determining truth in that particular case.

The metaphor is of a tent being unfolded, stretched out and erected (on some sort of support) over a piece of earth. The prophet using this metaphor is saying the heavens are like a great tent spread over the whole (presumably flat) earth and supported by foundations or pillars (e.g. mountains). There is no point in using a metaphor unless there is some real resemblance between the object and the metaphor.

Now you're claiming the Holy Spirit believed in a flat earth. This is a good lesson in how your theological approach can damages ones view of Scripture. This is a very telling point you're making. You're quite a ways down the slope.

You would have to have a very unscientific mind to find any sense in Humphrey's cosmology.

Nothing of substance there to respond to. But I'll leave the scientific aspect of the debate to those with his credentials.

Incorrect. There is no part of the bible I don't believe. I just strive to understand every part in the context of God's Word--including God's Word in nature, since the bible itself instructs us to listen to it.

You're simply fooling yourself. You're trying to understand scripture through atheistic presuppositions. Until you give those up you'll never be able to fully understand it (IMHO).

Actually, that is not true. Eye-witness evidence is often partial and contradictory. Good circumstantial evidence is often more reliable. Ask any lawyer. Eye-witness evidence generally comes down to which witness you believe.

I have asked lawyers. They say the opposite of what you're saying.

We don't know that these miracles occurred. We have only the biblical testimony that they did. But if the biblical testimony is true, we know that those who were there could examine the individuals and determine that they were once blind. John 9:13-23

Focus like a laser beam now. Did they examine the individuals through scientific investigation, or by gathering testimonies? If you could only grasp this very simple point you'd be well on your way to understanding creationism.

And apparently they believe that God restored the planet by
1. removing all evidence of a global flood, and
2. planting false evidence in nature to lead students of nature (including devout Christians) to a conclusion that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the flood accounts in Genesis.

I have already given my opinion of this sort of hermeneutic.

No creationists believe this. It's a strawman. You just don't understand the debate.

The scientist is not coming to wrong conclusions about the evidence. The evidence is what it is. Your claim is that the evidence is misleading because it was placed there by a miracle.

I think it's finally become a strawhouse. Evidence is not misleading. Only wrong presuppositions are misleading. When you trust in the Bible the evidence makes sense. When you put naturalistic presuppositions above the plain reading of scripture you have no one to blame for your errors.

Scientists assume that the evidence is not misleading. Christian scientists assume that nature does not mislead because the God who created it does not lie. Read Descartes.

Oy! I see some talking points are hard to abandon.

It's amazing how far you'll go to deny God's word and misrepresent creationists. But that's okay.

So far you're the only TE that has made the claim that science can still investigate in a non naturalistic environment. This is something most scientists would be embarrassed to hear. You're not doing your side any favors. But in fairness most TEs won’t go down that road. Most in your camp would agree that it would be impossible to date miraculously created wine. But apparently you don't think a little miracle like that would be much of a problem.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

rmwilliamsll said: what evidence? how does this evidence show a judgment on mankind?

See what scripture means by "willingly ignorant". The evidence is seen through destruction and death - fossils do provide the testimony of death.

does this mean you don't have any scientific evidence for a global flood and that you believe that the best defense is a good offense?

assume evidence of a global flood, how would it show judgment on mankind? especially since most of the death would be not-human. That is the essential function of special revelation to give us the meaning of events, if the events spoke on their own there would be no reason for revelation. duh. science can tell us about events, but it will never speak about the values or meaning of the events with respect to morality.


but again. what evidence do you have for a global flood?
and how does it show a value judgment that God is punishing human beings?

btw, where in special revelation does it say to expect natural revelation to reveal such values?
.....

 

[gluadys]

Really? What gave you the impression that I disagreed with Calminian? If anything it would be a confirmation of what scripture says, that in the last days there will come scoffers who will deny the flood as 2

The flood was no miracle, it was a cataclysm that left plenty of evidence to say that there was a judgment on man. I suspect that the problem is not the flood itself but why there was a need for a global flood, we object because we don’t want to be judged by God.

What gave me the impression you disagree with Calminian are your remarks here and earlier as compared with these from Calminian.

Seems the same old confusion still exists about scientific theories disproving the Bible. Science can neither falsify nor verify miraculous acts of God like the six day creation, the curse, or the flood (nor any other recorded miracles).


Many think they know how a certain miracle will affect the earth, therefore they think they can falsify it through the scientific method. ... Scientists understand natural floods. They don't understand supernatural global floods at all.

IOW, even though you never observed a miraculous flood and miraculous receding of the waters, you feel you know how it would look afterward. This is the mistake so many in the church are making.

 

[gluadys]

This failed to address my question. Could we know the man was miraculously healed merely by examining him afterward? —apart from testimonies??

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.

Because a natural explanation cannot be found does not mean something is scientifically proven to be a miracle.

Right. But that is the closest science can come to detecting miracle. That is why science will not say an event IS a miracle. Not even the scientists who investigate the Lourdes healings. Naming a healing as a miracle is what the church does.

The scientific method must always assume there have not be additions to natural processes. The minute you claim "miracle", you have abandoned the scientific method and moved to a philosophical opinion. This doesn't mean you're wrong it just means you don't believe science is the correct tool for determining truth in that particular case.

Agreed.

Now you're claiming the Holy Spirit believed in a flat earth.

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.

You're simply fooling yourself. You're trying to understand scripture through atheistic presuppositions. Until you give those up you'll never be able to fully understand it (IMHO).

I make no atheistic pre-suppositions since I am not an atheist. As to the creation of the earth, the flood, etc. my pre-suppositions are based on the fact that God created the earth and God's creation does not lie.

Did they examine the individuals through scientific investigation, or by gathering testimonies? If you could only grasp this very simple point you'd be well on your way to understanding creationism.

Gathering testimonies. This was a court of law. Testimony counts as evidence in that framework.

No creationists believe this.

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?

Evidence is not misleading.

That is what I said.

Only wrong presuppositions are misleading. When you trust in the Bible the evidence makes sense. When you put naturalistic presuppositions above the plain reading of scripture you have no one to blame for your errors.

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 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.

So far you're the only TE that has made the claim that science can still investigate in a non naturalistic environment.

I didn't say that. I said they can recognize at some points that they have no natural explanation for a phenomenon. Science cannot go beyond that. If miracles happen, this is the way science detects miracles, by failing to come up with a natural explanation.

 

[Crusadar]

rmwilliamsll said: does this mean you don't have any scientific evidence for a global flood and that you believe that the best defense is a good offense?

No, rmwilliamsll, it means that whatever evidence I give you – your going to deny it because you have already hardened your heart to what God’s word is telling you. You know as well as I do that no reason in the world will convince anyone to believe anything - if their mind is already set on believing differently.

assume evidence of a global flood, how would it show judgment on mankind? especially since most of the death would be not-human.

You can assume anything you want, I however will take it on God’s Word that it is telling me the truth. Everyone perished except those on the ark, among which were two of every animal that breathed on land – remember?

but again. what evidence do you have for a global flood? and how does it show a value judgment that God is punishing human beings?

The key word here is “perished” – so what does scripture say about who survived? For the wages of sin is - death. Could this also be why Jesus also spoke of the flood?

Jesus said: “For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” - Matthew 24:38-39

Could it be that Jesus was the ark of salvation in which all must also enter in order to escape God’s second judgment? Could it be that they were not aware that a flood was coming? No, because they could see Noah building the ark, and I’ll bet he was mocked plenty – just like “Christians” are today. They were “willingly ignorant”! And if it was a myth why would the Son of God who was there say that there was flood - and you who is mere mortal as myself who was not there say that there wasn’t? Who are we going to believe rmwilliamsll, yourself or your Lord and Savior?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

rmwilliamsll said: does this mean you don't have any scientific evidence for a global flood and that you believe that the best defense is a good offense?

reply:No, rmwilliamsll, it means that whatever evidence I give you – your going to deny it because you have already hardened your heart to what God’s word is telling you. You know as well as I do that no reason in the world will convince anyone to believe anything - if their mind is already set on believing differently.


believe what you wish.
i do not understand Christians who argue this way.
it not only degrades the Holy Spirit that lives within the brethren you are speaking to, but closes knowledge to all but those who closely agree with you, one source of the error of denominationalism...o'l well there are lots of things about this world that i don't understand, i will just add it to the list.

i have read* a great deal of YECist material, i have prayed daily for 40 years for wisdom and understanding, and am always ready to conform to the Word of God.
AFAIK there is NO evidence for a global flood circa 6K years ago.
fundamentally it is this attitude you express that divides seekers** from True Believers(tm). i am a Christian and have been for more than 30 years. i don't work at a job but dedicate my time to God in hopes that this service shows my gratitude, i have taught a Sunday School class now for two summers
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson_plan.html
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap0.html
and hope that God finds this an acceptable offering.

now what in my life or in my words would lead you to believe that i have a heart of stone rather than God's heart of flesh? that i disbelieve the universality of Noah's flood?
show me where that is an issue of salvation?

since i am obviously not going to get an answer to my inquiry about evidence for the universality of Noah's flood. i will just have to make the point without it.
Scripture has to be interpreted. We are wrong on things we believe Scripture says. When these things touch on the real physical and historical world we might have a means to help us re-evaluate and rethink our Scriptural understandings. This has happened in the issues around Noah's flood, the flood must have been localized because we have no evidence of a global flood. and a great deal of evidence that it did not occur. it is our interpretation of Scripture that is wrong. The Bible doesn't change, only what we believe it says.


* i publish my reading list to solicit help and more reading.
at: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/booklist.html
there is a significant number of books that i read knowing i will disagree but yet also know i will be challenged by them.

** i will trust God, Whose arm is strong to save, that the errors of my thinking and of my life will be forgiven in Christ Jesus. and i will continue to seek His wisdom in all i do and say. i have not arrived at my final destination and therefore will remain a pilgrim and a seeker until my last breath. i do not understand True Believers(tm) who think that they have arrived at all knowledge and truth on this side of the judgment and are unwilling to even study or risk changing. for that is not what God is calling me to do.


...

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Reading through these posts, I am amazed at the number of Christians who support the theory of evolution.

I always thought it was cut and dry. God created the earth and all that is in it. He created the entire universe, in fact. This shows God's sovereignty and His supremecy. God did not "use" evolution as a mechanism for creating the earth. Why would an all-powerful, sovereign God need an alternate mechanism to accomplish His purposes? Is He not powerful enough to create life on His own?

Secondly, the theory of evolution leaves God out altogether. It says all of life formed from a godless slime which just so happened to form itself into life (mathematically and scientifically impossible).

So basically it's one or the other. Either you believe God created the earth, or you believe He didn't. Theistic evolution doesn't fly either. It is merely an attempt by Christians to appear more acceptable in an era of scientific reasoning. But who are we pleasing? Man? God? Who is our allegiance to? Will we believe a theory based on tenuous "evidence" (not proof), or will we take our sovereign, Holy God for His word based on the evidence we've had all along in the Bible?

What do you believe?

The question of why God would use evolution is related to why God created us at all. Perhaps God used evolution because it allows creation to participate in its own creation.

 

[SonSeeker]

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

I am confused. What is there to interpret. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I didn't read anything that said God created this, then it became that... Except of course for Adam's rib, take that as you want. By the way, Darwin recanted on his deathbed....

 

[depthdeception]

I am confused. What is there to interpret. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I agree. But this does not mean that we should assume this passage is conveying precise information about the exact mechanism of creation...

I didn't read anything that said God created this, then it became that... Except of course for Adam's rib, take that as you want. By the way, Darwin recanted on his deathbed....

Let's assume that evolution is correct. Would you honestly think that the biblical writers would speak about it? Of course not! Their knowledge of the world wasn't developed enough to even consider the possibility, even as their understanding of the cosmos wasn't developed enough to tell us about the nature of the orbits of the planets, the four fundamental forces in the universe, etc. The error here is that we are expecting the biblical writers to provide us with information to which they could not have had access, and even if this access were possible, they would not have understood it in their own paradigm. And this, of course, would make us question the reason for their writing, that is, if it didn't mean anything to them...

 

[Raydar]

Could it be that Jesus was the ark of salvation in which all must also enter in order to escape God’s second judgment? Could it be that they were not aware that a flood was coming? No, because they could see Noah building the ark, and I’ll bet he was mocked plenty – just like “Christians” are today. They were “willingly ignorant”! And if it was a myth why would the Son of God who was there say that there was flood - and you who is mere mortal as myself who was not there say that there wasn’t? Who are we going to believe rmwilliamsll, yourself or your Lord and Savior?

1.Yes.
2. I agree, No.
and
3. I choose Christ

Before man discovered how to split an atom most people scoffed at what the Bible says, in 2Peter I believe, that the second judgement would not be by flood but fire. All the elements burning was thought to be impossible. God holds everything together and in order to destroy the world by fire all He would have to do is stop holding everything together.

 

[charityagape]

Why do Christians think the bible must be interpreted to fit into man's latest scientific find? Man is not that smart, and what he believes today could be disproved tomorrow. Do we then reinterpret the Bible to fit the "new" scientific evidence?

 

[depthdeception]

Why do Christians think the bible must be interpreted to fit into man's latest scientific find? Man is not that smart, and what he believes today could be disproved tomorrow. Do we then reinterpret the Bible to fit the "new" scientific evidence?

In a sense, yes. If the Scriptures are truly "alive" and applicable for our lives, then they must be able to coincide with our experiences of the universe. However, if we avoid subjecting the Scriptures to science, and avoid claiming the Scriptures are meant to give us scientific information, then the problem magically disappears.

 

[SonSeeker]

I agree. But this does not mean that we should assume this passage is conveying precise information about the exact mechanism of creation...

Let's assume that evolution is correct. Would you honestly think that the biblical writers would speak about it? Of course not! Their knowledge of the world wasn't developed enough to even consider the possibility, even as their understanding of the cosmos wasn't developed enough to tell us about the nature of the orbits of the planets, the four fundamental forces in the universe, etc. The error here is that we are expecting the biblical writers to provide us with information to which they could not have had access, and even if this access were possible, they would not have understood it in their own paradigm. And this, of course, would make us question the reason for their writing, that is, if it didn't mean anything to them...

I disagree. I think the error is to believe that God used evolution and wants us to believe that without telling us he used it... If he used evolution to create the world as we know it, then it would be in the Bible. We wouldnt have to try and interpret it as being too advanced for the first folks to put into words. There are many things in the Bible that are hinted at that were beyond the understanding of the people of the time, yet they still tried to explain in their own words. The Biblical test regarding evolution is then, is there anywhere in the Bible where a writer attempted to discribe evolution? Is it ever referred to? Since the answer to those questions is no, then we must believe that evolution has failed the test. The beginning of life has been described to us as created by God, not evolved by God.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why do Christians think the bible must be interpreted to fit into man's latest scientific find? Man is not that smart, and what he believes today could be disproved tomorrow. Do we then reinterpret the Bible to fit the "new" scientific evidence?

the evidence for a very old earth was established by the end of the 18thC. that is over 200 years ago. the evidence that a global flood did not occur within the last 10k years was demonstrated by the end of the first quarter of the 19thC, that is 175 years ago.

i would hardly make those things "the latest scientific find".

likewise conservative theological thought has never even begun to discuss the insights of quantum mechanics and the ideas underlying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Godel's ideas.
and they are only 75 years old.

so it is not a question of modern science to deal with, but insights gained 175-200 years ago. hardly a passing fancy.


.....

 

[depthdeception]

I disagree. I think the error is to believe that God used evolution and wants us to believe that without telling us he used it... If he used evolution to create the world as we know it, then it would be in the Bible.

Why???? Not very much else about the world which we have learned through science is in the bible. Why would evolution be an exception?

We wouldnt have to try and interpret it as being too advanced for the first folks to put into words. There are many things in the Bible that are hinted at that were beyond the understanding of the people of the time, yet they still tried to explain in their own words. The Biblical test regarding evolution is then, is there anywhere in the Bible where a writer attempted to discribe evolution? Is it ever referred to? Since the answer to those questions is no, then we must believe that evolution has failed the test. The beginning of life has been described to us as created by God, not evolved by God.

This is quite the arbitrary "test" which you have devised, and on the basis of this criterion, you must discard 99% of all human knowledge.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I disagree. I think the error is to believe that God used evolution and wants us to believe that without telling us he used it... If he used evolution to create the world as we know it, then it would be in the Bible. We wouldnt have to try and interpret it as being too advanced for the first folks to put into words. There are many things in the Bible that are hinted at that were beyond the understanding of the people of the time, yet they still tried to explain in their own words. The Biblical test regarding evolution is then, is there anywhere in the Bible where a writer attempted to discribe evolution? Is it ever referred to? Since the answer to those questions is no, then we must believe that evolution has failed the test. The beginning of life has been described to us as created by God, not evolved by God.

And just where in the Bible does it describe the light from the sun being formed by nuclear reactions? Diseases caused by germs? That the American continents even exist? There are plenty of things not mentioned, but we have found out about them and accept them. Why would God clutter up a book about spiritual matters by trying to tell goat herders about quantum physics?

 

[gluadys]

By the way, Darwin recanted on his deathbed....

NO, that is not true according to his family. The person who first claimed this was nowhere near Darwin at the time he died.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And just where in the Bible does it describe the light from the sun being formed by nuclear reactions? Diseases caused by germs? That the American continents even exist? There are plenty of things not mentioned, but we have found out about them and accept them. Why would God clutter up a book about spiritual matters by trying to tell goat herders about quantum physics?

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


.....

 

[SonSeeker]

And just where in the Bible does it describe the light from the sun being formed by nuclear reactions? Diseases caused by germs? That the American continents even exist? There are plenty of things not mentioned, but we have found out about them and accept them. Why would God clutter up a book about spiritual matters by trying to tell goat herders about quantum physics?

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...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

By the way, Darwin recanted on his deathbed....

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?