Why Theistic Evolutionists and Christian Creationists Butt Heads

[SackLunch]

Of late, this board has been rife with debate on why theistic evolution doesn't hold water. Why is that? Consider this.

First, the theory of evolution presupposes there is no God. Evolution is an endeavor that tries to explain away origins and complexity without first acknowledging that God exists, or that He created all things. So to say one believes in Jesus and yet at the same time supports a belief system that tells them there is no God is contradictory, if not flawed.

The second argument revolves around the Genesis account and the slippery slope of denying God's message to humanity as written in the Bible. If we can't take God for His word in Genesis, then what else will we not trust Him for? What other parts of His message to us in the Bible will we throw out? Because if Genesis is up for grabs, then why not the Gospels? Why not Jesus Himself? Why not the entire Bible?

This is par for the course in our modern-day pick-and-choose theology. But God clearly says we are to believe every word of His in the Bible, because all of Scripture is inspired by Him (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21). And if we can't believe Him for His word one area, why believe Him in any area?

What do you guys think? Can Theistic Evolutionists and Christian Creationists just get along?

 

[nvxplorer]

First, the theory of evolution presupposes there is no God.

Incorrect. Evolution does presuppose God. Just not the God you worship. Here’s a picture of Him from the Holy Book:

C’mon, Sack. It’s time to put it to rest.

 

[Non-Sequitur]

First, the theory of evolution presupposes there is no God.

So how many times has he been corrected about this now?

 

[DrummerWench]

First, the theory of evolution presupposes there is no God.

Y'know, I stopped reading just about here.
DW

 

[Ozymandius]

Y'know, I stopped reading just about here.
DW

Haha, I stopped after I saw the heart icon next to the title.

 

[SackLunch]

Does anyone here have a valid, substantial remark in regards to the OP?

 

[SackLunch]

So how many times has he been corrected about this now?

Then why do scientists jump up and down like a babboon when you mention God in their presence?

 

[SackLunch]

Haha, I stopped after I saw the heart icon next to the title.

You know you like it. The heart symbolizes the love of Jesus Christ, because He was the embodiment of the absolute love and truth of God (John 14:6).

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Then why do scientists jump up and down like a babboon when you mention God in their presence?

Scientists do that? Does this include scientists that are Christians?

 

[SackLunch]

Y'know, I stopped reading just about here.
DW

Keep reading. That's the truth. As if scientists are so inclined to acknowledge that God is the creator of the universe and the human race? In reality, evolutionary scientists are highly opposed to the notion of including God in their scientific pursuits. Many people here on this board reflect these views.

Your comment just doesn't make much sense.

 

[mikeynov]

Keep reading. That's the truth. As if scientists are so inclined to acknowledge that God is the creator of the universe and the human race? In reality, evolutionary scientists are highly opposed to the notion of including God in their scientific pursuits. Many people here on this board reflect these views.

Your comment just doesn't make much sense.

How many scientists do you personally know?

How many peer reviewed journals can you name, and how many articles by particular authors whose conclusions you find lacking can you name?

Do you have any background in science whatsoever that isn't copy/pasted from creationist books/webpages?

Do you have any idea how pretentious and laughable it comes across for a science know-nothing to lecture scientists about science?

If you haven't yet figured out why the divine isn't a component of science, you need to go back to junior high and re-learn the history of science and the basics of the scientific method. It has literally nothing to do with "atheism," it has to do with the natural confines of science itself. That you and I are having this conversation on the internet implies that scientists seem to get a few things right.

 

[SackLunch]

Incorrect. Evolution does presuppose God. Just not the God you worship. Here’s a picture of Him from the Holy Book:

C’mon, Sack. It’s time to put it to rest.

So evolution worships the creation?

 

[benjdm]

Can Theistic Evolutionists and Christian Creationists just get along?

<First needlessly sarcastic first response self-censored>

For either group to get along would require a 'I think this is true but I could be wrong' stance instead of 'I know without a doubt' stance. The former seems to be rare among Christians, especially creationists. So my answer has to be no.

 

[nvxplorer]

So evolution worships the creation?

You don’t recognize the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you see Him? The Creator of all things. Blasphemy! (pardon me while I pray for Sack’s noodles...er...soul)

May you be blessed by His noodly appendages.

 

[SackLunch]

How many scientists do you personally know?

How many peer reviewed journals can you name, and how many articles by particular authors whose conclusions you find lacking can you name?

Do you have any background in science whatsoever that isn't copy/pasted from creationist books/webpages?

Do you have any idea how pretentious and laughable it comes across for a science know-nothing to lecture scientists about science?

If you haven't yet figured out why the divine isn't a component of science, you need to go back to junior high and re-learn the history of science and the basics of the scientific method. It has literally nothing to do with "atheism," it has to do with the natural confines of science itself. That you and I are having this conversation on the internet implies that scientists seem to get a few things right.

Let's see. I have a good buddy who is a doctorate-level geneticist. He is a strict Christian Creationist because he has seen the evidence for Creation.

The only peer reviewed journal I reference is the Bible. It is God's trustworthy, inerrant message to mankind. It is the most accurate text in the world today.

I did not reference an article or Web page in my OP. Those words were my own. I am glad you are impressed!!

I never said I know everything about science. But neither does anyone here, obviously.

Origins can most certainly be found in the Bible. It is man's arrogance and fallibility to presume that he can create such theories of origins and complexity independent of his Creator.

 

[SackLunch]

You don&#8217;t recognize the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you see Him? The Creator of all things. Blasphemy! (pardon me while I pray for Sack&#8217;s noodles...er...soul)

May you be blessed by His noodly appendages.

Thanks for the noodly appendages. The spaghetti monster will likely enter into my nightmares. But alas, that pile of pasta is not God. So I don't have to worry about it I guess.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In reality, evolutionary scientists are highly opposed to the notion of including God in their scientific pursuits. Many people here on this board reflect these views.

So you say.

Let's assume for a moment that this is true. How would you propose to remedy this?

How should scientists, in your ever-so-humble opinion, include God in their scientific pursuits?

 

[mikeynov]

Let's see. I have a good buddy who is a doctorate-level geneticist. He is a strict Christian Creationist because he has seen the evidence for Creation.

Wow, you know one whole scientist. I'm impressed. What has he published in favor of creation science?

Feel free to invite him here. I have a feeling he'd be surprised.

The only peer reviewed journal I reference is the Bible. It is God's trustworthy, inerrant message to mankind. It is the most accurate text in the world today.

lol

I never said I know everything about science. But neither does anyone here, obviously.

I'm about to have a degree in biology, and this board has a collection of doctors, biologists, geologists, physicists and scientists of various sorts.

I'd say a lot of people here have some idea what they're talking about. But you don't - so you project that onto everybody else, because you just can't imagine how you, somebody with no in-depth knowledge of any of the subjects he critiques, could possibly have drawn errant conclusions about these topics.

Origins can most certainly be found in the Bible. It is man's arrogance and fallibility to presume that he can create such theories of origins and complexity independent of his Creator.

All the evidence is stacked against a magical, abra cadabra scenario of creation. Your understanding of scripture represents only a fraction of relevent interpretations by actual theologians on the topic, a very large percentage of which do accept an old earth and evolution.

How could that be? They must not be enlightened, like you, God's personal spokesperson.

 

[nvxplorer]

Origins can most certainly be found in the Bible. It is man's arrogance and fallibility to presume that he can create such theories of origins and complexity independent of his Creator.

I must strongly disagree. It is the arrogance of literalists that blinds them to the creation in favor of their man-made interpretations.

 

[TheBear]

First, the theory of evolution presupposes there is no God.

I couldn't get past this line. It is absolutely false.

This is one of the major reasons there is a lot of head-butting. Creationists start out with a false premise, and launch their counter-points from the false premise.

It's especially disheartening, when someone is told something repeatedly, but still plows ahead on a false premise.

If you really want to minimize the head-butting, stop putting forth lies.