Why I post, or Yes, you can be a Christian and accept evolution!

[rmwilliamsll]

As incomplete as the secular alternative to the majestic creative power of God may be, it is accepted as factual and compelling to the point it dictates to many in the church how to interpret God's word. The travesty and irony is that this approach to defining Biblical interpretation is the exact opposite of the mandate within scripture which clearly places the Word as the standard by which all physical evidence must be interpreted.


interesting, is Scripture to be the standard guide to physical evidence?
or rather is it to be the internal framework for a person's mind/heart with which to interpret the physical evidence?

in one case the Scriptures are opposed to science as an epistemology, on the other as a metaphysics to inform the consciousness of how to interpret the universe.

in the first case the immediate response is:
flat earth, geocentricism, slavery, all BIG issues where the world caused the church to modify its long held sacred traditional interpretation of Scripture, BECAUSE the world taught the church something important.

The images/motifs/metaphors/models for each are quite different.

in the first case, we posit our interpretation of Scripture as a competitor to scientific thought. This is the problem of YECism, and the results speak volumes. YECism is not just bad science, it is bad theology as well. Why? because it ignores the human element in Scripture, that the cosmology is human. It is being used to get a message across to readers, not just the original readers but the invisible church throughout the ages, which does not share this ANE cosmology.

In the second case, Scripture becomes the rule of faith and practice, a human mental framework through which the world is seen. Like eyeglasses, but it doesn't directly speak to the world seen out there. For instance, if the cosmology of Genesis seems to require a 6K year old universe, we see it as being USED by God to transmit spiritual truths. Not being TAUGHT by God as a once and forever structural element of the universe. For that we need to actually look at the radically contingent universe to see how God created the heavens and the earth.

....

 

[California Tim]

interesting, is Scripture to be the standard guide to physical evidence?
or rather is it to be the internal framework for a person's mind/heart with which to interpret the physical evidence?

Let's just say the Bible presents the "end result" of creation and all evidence should support accordingly. Perhaps the most that could be said is we debate what it actually says. I contend the YEC view.
By the way - Yes, the physical evidence must take a subsevient position to Biblical truth, otherwise no miracle aside from those explanable in natural law would have been possible or accurate. Not many here would argue God's omnipotence in the minor miracles where they oppose natural science would they?

in one case the Scriptures are opposed to science as an epistemology, on the other as a metaphysics to inform the consciousness of how to interpret the universe.

in the first case the immediate response is:
flat earth, geocentricism, slavery, all BIG issues where the world caused the church to modify its long held sacred traditional interpretation of Scripture, BECAUSE the world taught the church something important.

There is a HUGE difference in the way the Genesis account is presented as literal narrative history (in detail) and the "inference" supposedly drawn regarding flat earth, geocentrism and slavery - none of which are taught or condoned in the Bible - but instead were derived from isolated verses and erroneous conjecture on the part of interpreters.

 

[gluadys]

But it's not about what 'biologists say,' but how credible and convincing the evidence is. It's quite arrogant to expect others to accept that you're right without question. All I get from science is a bunch of "may have" Probably" and "might haves" I think the obstacle is pride more than unbelief.

The point is that biologists are working with the evidence every day. They are the people who are most familiar with the evidence, both how much there is, and what its importance is.

Isn't is rather arrogant for people who have much less familiarity with the evidence (like me and you) to assume they are wrong before we even investigate what they already know?

Would you presume your mechanic knew less about automobiles than you do (assuming you are not a mechanic) or that an electrician knew less about wiring than you do (assuming you are not an electrician) or that a master chess player (assuming you are not one) knew less about strategy than you do?

Why are professional scientists not granted the same courtesy of assuming that they do know their trade and know it better than amateurs like us?

That doesn't mean they will always be right. But the probability that they are right is much greater than in the case of the interested amateur. So the onus is on the amateur to present a case for disagreeing with the scientist. And a case that takes into account all the evidence on the matter known to science.

 

[California Tim]

The point is that biologists are working with the evidence every day. They are the people who are most familiar with the evidence, both how much there is, and what its importance is.

Isn't is rather arrogant for people who have much less familiarity with the evidence (like me and you) to assume they are wrong before we even investigate what they already know?

Would you presume your mechanic knew less about automobiles than you do (assuming you are not a mechanic) or that an electrician knew less about wiring than you do (assuming you are not an electrician) or that a master chess player (assuming you are not one) knew less about strategy than you do?

Why are professional scientists not granted the same courtesy of assuming that they do know their trade and know it better than amateurs like us?

That doesn't mean they will always be right. But the probability that they are right is much greater than in the case of the interested amateur. So the onus is on the amateur to present a case for disagreeing with the scientist. And a case that takes into account all the evidence on the matter known to science.

I would not need to know the name of the maufacturer of the printing press, the reference # of the ink color, nor the exact composition of the paper used to print counterfeit money in order to instantly identify the fake. These days, all that is needed is a special "marker" that instantly ID's the phoney bills and any "amateur" can expertly identify the counterfeit with no other knowledge than that the marker is reliable. So this is a strawman argument to dismiss the intuitive ability of the believer to discern truth from error based on lack of indepth knowledge of the erroneous methodology in question. As long as one accepts the plainly written and authoritative nature of the Bible, it becomes the proverbial "marker" by which all counterfeits may be accurately identified without having to become a PhD in all earth sciences to contend for the faith.

 

[Vance]

On the miracle issue, this is not a problem of evidence at all, it is only an issue of the supernatural. As Christians, we have no problem with God overruling, even if just temporarily, the natural order of things He, Himself, created in order to perform a miracle. This is not contrary to science one little bit. Science does not preclude the supernatural, it just states how things happen in their natural state or process. If something supernatural happens, it is outside of its arena and science can say nothing about it one way or the other.

Evidence, or data, is another matter. Evidence will not exist for something that did not happen, and if something happens, and it leaves evidence then that evidence tells us about the event. I believe that God would not allow evidence to exist which is contrary to the reality of His creation, past and present. So, if the evidence exists that things happened a certain way, then it must have happened that way. God would not lie in His Creation, no more than He would lie in His Word.

Now, this does not in any way argue against any miracle God has ever effected, since there is no evidence against any miracle described in Scripture (of course). The fact that the resurrection would be contrary to one of God's natural laws does not argue against it's happening at all, it just means it was a supernatural event.

The fact that God created the universe was a supernatural event, and there is no evidence which can contradict this. God created every bit of life on this planet, and there is no evidence which contradicts this. But there is very dramatic and conclusive evidence that He did not create it less than 10,000 years ago, and this evidence would not exist if God HAD created that recently. So, the miracle still took place, we just know a bit more about when it took place.

 

[gluadys]

"Faith, Hope, Love". These three ideals are presented as the cornerstone of the Christian life. All three are intangible yet few would argue their existence nor contest their profound effect on the relationship of the believer with Christ. Christ even went so far as to denounce the crowd as an "evil generation" that demanded a sign (tangible manisfestation) for proof of His divinity. Yet here we are today, brothers and sisters in Christ consistently arguing over whether or not there is "proof" that God's word can be accepted plainly and reliably. Without "proof" that the Genesis creation account is literal, the secular scientific critique of the human origins takes precedence over "faith".

This is a red herring, CT. Neither faith, hope or love calls on us to shut our eyes to the physical facts of the universe. Nor does opening our eyes to those facts require us to abandon faith, hope or love.

As incomplete as the secular alternative to the majestic creative power of God may be, it is accepted as factual and compelling to the point it dictates to many in the church how to interpret God's word.

You are projecting your personal opinion as if it were universal truth. I don't find evolution to take anything at all away from the "majestic creative power of God." In fact, I find it enhances my appreciation of that power and the God who used it in evolution.

The travesty and irony is that this approach to defining Biblical interpretation is the exact opposite of the mandate within scripture which clearly places the Word as the standard by which all physical evidence must be interpreted. I find it further ironic that a vast majority of those who claim a "higher" level of education and perhaps even "intelligence" are, as a group, far more skeptical of the existence of the God of the Bible and consistently challenge the historicity of virtually every account in the Bible.

Again you are projecting your own bias. Challenging the historicity of some biblical accounts does not mean challenging the truth of its teachings. Still less does is amount to an attack on God's Word. In fact, in my experience it gives greater insight into the intention of the biblical writers and improves our understanding of how God works in history.

Just consider the bias of virtually every secular university. They (the intellectual elite) further dedicate an inordinant amount of time in active opposition and in the vain effort to disprove the Bible as the only inspired Word of the Almighty.

I've spent a little bit of time around universities myself. I haven't come across a field of study that spends any time on trying to disprove the bible. That is left to the extra-curricular efforts of the debating society.

The beauty of it though is that God was kind enough to provide enough evidence in favor of YEC'ism that even some skeptics would clearly see it, once the intellectual bias is overcome.

Well, so far that evidence has generally not held up to scrutiny.

 

[gluadys]

So this is a strawman argument to dismiss the intuitive ability of the believer to discern truth from error based on lack of indepth knowledge of the erroneous methodology in question. As long as one accepts the plainly written and authoritative nature of the Bible, it becomes the proverbial "marker" by which all counterfeits may be accurately identified without having to become a PhD in all earth sciences to contend for the faith.

The marker will give you false readings if you are using it improperly. If you have committed yourself to a "plain" intepretation of scripture which is not what was intended, then using that interpretation as a touchstone for evaluating non-biblical knowledge will give you a biased result.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So this is a strawman argument to dismiss the intuitive ability of the believer to discern truth from error based on lack of indepth knowledge of the erroneous methodology in question. As long as one accepts the plainly written and authoritative nature of the Bible,


is this the same 'intuitive ability of believers' that gives rise to the problem of denominationalism?

i guess it doesn't work very well, looking at history, theology and the massive differences between denominations all calling themselves 'Bible believing' 'Spirit inspired' etc.

compared to the relative uniformity of scientific understanding, the church has a real problem with unity and epistemology.....
and that is just on interpreting the Scriptures, that is not even touching upon scientific issues, as does YECism.

 

[Vance]

oooh, here is another place for me to put this quote, which might provide one explanation as to why there are so many denominations and varying interpretations, even among those who are led by the Spirit:

"Oh, no, one of us has that wrong, that is for sure, and the Spirit would not lead us in different directions. And, I agree with you that God does not necessarily provide specific guidance regarding scientific issues. My point was that the Spirit can give guidance regarding the proper interpretation of Scripture, and will never lead one astray in this regard. And, the study of Genesis is, obviously, a Scriptural issue.

Now, let's think about this carefully. If God is allowing Twincrier to feel at peace with her literal interpretation of Scripture, and me to feel at peace with my non-literal interpretation of Scripture, what does that mean? I think that there can only be one conclusion:

The viewpoints that we hold in common about this subject are correct, and the viewpoints upon which we differ are of so little consequence to God that our having different viewpoints does not rise to the level of needing the Spirit's guidance.

So, what viewpoints do we have in common? The theological truths that arise from Genesis.

And what viewpoints do we differ on? Whether, in addition to the theological truths, the events described are literal history or not literal history, or some mix of the two.

Therefore, this tells me that God simply does not care what we believe about the literalness or historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, as long as we get the theological messages He intends for us from those passages.

And, therefore, we should not be making the literalness/historicity issue a dividing point for Christianity, and should not be teaching that it is an important, much less an essential aspect of doctrine."

 

[1denomination]

oooh, here is another place for me to put this quote, which might provide one explanation as to why there are so many denominations and varying interpretations, even among those who are led by the Spirit:

"Oh, no, one of us has that wrong, that is for sure, and the Spirit would not lead us in different directions. And, I agree with you that God does not necessarily provide specific guidance regarding scientific issues. My point was that the Spirit can give guidance regarding the proper interpretation of Scripture, and will never lead one astray in this regard. And, the study of Genesis is, obviously, a Scriptural issue.

Now, let's think about this carefully. If God is allowing Twincrier to feel at peace with her literal interpretation of Scripture, and me to feel at peace with my non-literal interpretation of Scripture, what does that mean? I think that there can only be one conclusion:

The viewpoints that we hold in common about this subject are correct, and the viewpoints upon which we differ are of so little consequence to God that our having different viewpoints does not rise to the level of needing the Spirit's guidance.

So, what viewpoints do we have in common? The theological truths that arise from Genesis.

And what viewpoints do we differ on? Whether, in addition to the theological truths, the events described are literal history or not literal history, or some mix of the two.

Therefore, this tells me that God simply does not care what we believe about the literalness or historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, as long as we get the theological messages He intends for us from those passages.

And, therefore, we should not be making the literalness/historicity issue a dividing point for Christianity, and should not be teaching that it is an important, much less an essential aspect of doctrine."

Vance you like that dont you.

 

[California Tim]

I believe that God would not allow evidence to exist which is contrary to the reality of His creation, past and present. So, if the evidence exists that things happened a certain way, then it must have happened that way.

Not to pick on your posts - I simply enjoy our exchanges. While I agree with the first half of the above statement, the second half presumes a correct interpretation of the evidence. Since we differ on the conclusions drawn by the same evidence, we have a basis for this debate. You conclude the evidence supports TE, and I disagree, claiming the very same evidence supports YEC, consistent with a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

As for lying, I also agree God would not lie, but Satan, the father of lies can and does - to the extent that according to (Matthew 24:24) he - "would deceive even the elect if possible". So seeing a vast consortium of opinions favoring ET and TE do little to disuade me from what appears so plain in the Bible. In fact, having so many who openly oppose Christ fervently espouse the ET, strengthens my concern that it is actually incompatable with the Biblical account. And we are not talking about the "laws of gravity" or "germ theory", but the very essence of the dichotomy between the world's view of man and the universe and God's view. Non-Christian ET'ers try to distance themselves from the abiogenesis problem, but let's face it, the two are inextricably intertwined. Christian TE'ers feel they have the perfect compromise by introducing the God-inspired creation-seed program (if you will). But the only reason for the compromise is to satisfy those who's motivation is to disprove the concept of a Creator altogether through an alternative method of evidence interpretation.

Have to run.... more on this later.

 

[TwinCrier]

Yes, everything we know about this earth and universe is based on a degree of certainty, never absolute. The question is always HOW likely is a given explanation likely to be correct. 99.95 % of scientists in the relevent fields accept evolution because it is very simply THAT likely to be the correct explanation for the evidence we have. It is as well-accepted as any theory in science, and more so that most.

Could you pl;ease provide your source that 99.95 % of scientists in the relevent fields accept evolution.

 

[Vance]

Tim: Oh, that last line just will not do! :0)

I have no desire whatsoever to satisfy any non-Christian of anything in regards to origins, and it is not even a compromise since I start with a non-literal reading so I have nothing to compromise. The evidence from God's Creation, to my mind, simply fits perfectly with the interpretation I already have. This fact helped confirm my interpretation (to the extent it needed confirmation).

But, yes, I was begging the question regarding the evidence from God's Creation, but the evidence is just so overwhelming. I am utterly convinced that were it not for your desire to read the text as literal history (meaning, if you were willing to consider the evidence entirely objectively) you would come to the same conclusion regarding that evidence as us TE's. I know that sounds patronizing, but it really is not. Most Creationist organizations make no bones about the fact that they start with the presumption of YEC and view the evidence from that perspective, rather than letting the evidence determine the conclusions. In short, if you are looking for evidence to support something you will find it and be able to "write off" any evidence that contradicts what you believe.

Some say that modern scientists also have a bias, and that it leads them to "see" evolution in everything, but this is not really the case at all. They may expect to see something that conforms to evolution (the same way I expect a dropped ball to fall rather than rise), but they still take the evidence as it comes and if it doesn't seem to fit, they actually get a bit excited. Something new!! If they could find a new wrinkle in the explanation of how evolution works, or debunk evolution altogether, they would be famous (and rich) and the most respected scientist of their age.

But let's say we took away all previous knowledge as well as any religiously based presumptions and just presented a bunch of bright minds with the evidence of the earth was we have it. I have no doubt whatsoever that they would eventually come up with exactly what the general consensus of science is right now. It is just what the evidence shows.

 

[Vance]

Could you pl;ease provide your source that 99.95 % of scientists in the relevent fields accept evolution.

Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.
Newsweek, 29 Jun. 1987, page 23

 

[grmorton]

I am not closed minded to this issue, but in the absence of credible 'evidence', I believe it safer to stay with a literal interpretation of a biblical passage, especially one that is in a historical narrative book. To me the issue is not so much about the observable evidence, but rather about the hypotheses made to explain that evidence. Science has elevated to these theory status, but to the layman, I have serious doubts about the validity of that status.

In a court system there are two levels of evidence to prove a case. (at least in Australia). In civil matters it is balance-of-probability, but in criminal it is beyond-reasonable doubt. While it could be argued and their is some historical legal precedent to conclude that evolutionary theory, could meet the challenge of the civil standard. However, I seriously doubt it could consistently meet the criminal standard.

Now my point, why should a believer modify their interpretation of Scripture, because of information that is not yet 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It seems to me that a very poor standard is being superimposed over the Bible.

I would be interested in hearing what the significant evidence was that caused you to change your position, or was it rather the wearing down by peer group pressure of fellow scientists?

Rather than hijack this thread, I will start a thread tonight on some of the geological evidences that I feel are beyond reasonable doubt. Things like large canyons carved into rocks now deeply buried. Deltas found deep in the geologic record, the time for tracks and trails of tiny animals like trilobites. If you haven't seen my thread on river channels, go look at it.

 

[Vance]

Rather than hijack this thread, I will start a thread tonight on some of the geological evidences that I feel are beyond reasonable doubt. Things like large canyons carved into rocks now deeply buried. Deltas found deep in the geologic record, the time for tracks and trails of tiny animals like trilobites. If you haven't seen my thread on river channels, go look at it.

Yes, very convincing. But presenting evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" presumes the reader is reasonable!

 

[grmorton]

Yes, very convincing. But presenting evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" presumes the reader is reasonable!

Oh......I forgot that.

 

[John914]

Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.
Newsweek, 29 Jun. 1987, page 23

Hi Vance. I am new here, but not new there. I am not sure i understand your point, [because the road is narrow]. God works on the heart and not on %, but if i remember right, More will believe a lie then the truth and i am sure you know the verses. I really don't understand your meaning and will wait to understand, but let me add that if there are 480,000 scientists and if only 700 believe in Gods word, it would not surprise me. and GOD is nerver surprised.

In His Love
John 914
II Tim 2:2

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

I will read with interest those threads when I get some time.
I did however want to comment on this by Vance;

But let's say we took away all previous knowledge as well as any religiously based presumptions and just presented a bunch of bright minds with the evidence of the earth was we have it. I have no doubt whatsoever that they would eventually come up with exactly what the general consensus of science is right now. It is just what the evidence shows.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's say that Mars was not thrown out from the sun (not sure if that is the theoy or not), but rather was a large chunk of matter (planet) floating through space that was captured by our sun's gravitational field. Likewise Earth might have done likewise.

I am certainly not saying this is what happened, but if it did, it is pretty clear that the two events could have been widely separated by time. Their current location in this case would say nothing of their origin.

However, we have at this present time rovers on mars providing lots of geological data. The tendency will be for scientists to apply the same time scales of Earth to the geologic formations on Mars. They will present very well written papers with logical arguments and lots of data and a lot of acadaemic speak BUT if their assumptions about creation age are wrong, their other conclusions will also fail because they are premised on wrong assumptions.

It is natural to take the knowledge we thing we know about Earth and apply it Mars, and it may provide a very interesting interpretation of current formations BUT it is not proveable theory.

What if Mars was captured into orbit say 5000 years ago. Its geologic creation age could be anything. The forces and pressures operating on it in other locations of the universe could be totally outside of our experience here. I say this to demonstrate that what we think we know, could be radically wrong.

On the basis that our perceived knowledge could be wrong, why do we so easily dismissed the declared words of God, to how He did it.

 

[Stinker]

Evolution is just another scientific theory about God's Creation, and is not "religious" or "secular".
Vance post #20




Vance: A (scientific) theory is one that is VERIFIABLE. Evolution is not. Neither is the theory of Intelligent Design. Both of these are (general) theories and being such, are left to the Philosphers to debate as to which is the most logical.