YECs: What is the problem with Evolution?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Bonhoffer, mate, will you please lay off the charge that TE "picks and chooses", and the associated claim that we "reject" verses.

We do not. We interpret them differently. Please respect that, or I can guarantee that the conversation will not remain civil. I don't care much because I'm not even a believer in infallibility, let alone inerrancy, but I know several TEs who post here are.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Bonhoffer, the same logic would say that the theory of gravity is against scripture because according to gravity people who fall off cliffs get splattered, and therefore there's nothing wrong with pushing people off cliffs.

It is a big mistake to derive morality from a scientific theory.

I am not saying that the world doesnt operate by the law of the jungle now. I do beleive life is a survival of the fittest where the worst sinners are likely to survive. Anyone can see that we live in a dog eat dog world where selfishness brings success. I will even say that the way of the world is based on evolutionary principles.

However the reason the world is like this is because of the Fall and sin, not because the kill or be killed attitude has always been around.
The law of gravity does not have moral implications because it was created by God BEFORE the Fall. If Adam had pushed Eve off a cliff in Eden, Eve would not have done splat and died. She would have just hit the floor without any damage or pain. Pushing people off cliffs wasnt a sin in Eden and wont be a sin in Gods Kingdom. It only became a sin once death and pain came into the world. Then violence became a sin because it causes death and pain. So Gods law of gravity doesnt have any moral implications because it was created when the world was perfect. However if the Law of Dog Eat Dog had been created by God right from the beginning in the 'perfect' Garden of Eden, then Eden wouldnt have been perfect. Adam and Eve would have been trying to compete with each other before the fall. But if they had been competing with each other before the Fall they would have been sinning. But the Bible states that humanity had no understanding of sin or evil until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.
So if this is the case then how could they be living by the law of the jungle before they even know what selfishness is?

The only way Evolution could have been present before the Fall is if the Surivival of the Fittest part of it was removed. However a theory of evolution without selfishness simply doesnt work and goes against what Darwin beleived.

Gravity however can work without death, pain or sin. I dare say there will be gravity in Gods Kingdom which stops us from being floated off into space. The law of the jungle which evolution promotes will simply not exist then !

 

[Bonhoffer]

Bonhoffer, mate, will you please lay off the charge that TE "picks and chooses", and the associated claim that we "reject" verses.

We do not. We interpret them differently. Please respect that, or I can guarantee that the conversation will not remain civil. I don't care much because I'm not even a believer in infallibility, let alone inerrancy, but I know several TEs who post here are.

Sorry if I have annoyed you. I am not saying ALL TE's pick and choose, I am saying they are MORE likely to pick and choose. Evolution in my veiw as a theory 'encourages' the pick and choose approach because man is putting their own ideas into the Bible.

How many creationists do you know who arent inerrantists?
Although I know TE's that are also inerrantists, practically all who beleive in Bible errancy are TE's. I beleive that rejecting the infalliblity of the Bible (at least) is wrong and spiritually dangerous. (although I can understand why people reject it)
Some might say that theistic evolution is a gateway drug into rejecting infallibility. However it could also be argued that TE is a gateway drug for an atheist accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

TE's are more likely to be liberals theologically and as you know I am not much of a fan of liberal theology although I am a liberal politically.

 

[Asimis]

I believe men are all fallible. I believe, when one is truly digging into the Scriptures of God's Word to know Him, we are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is infallible, as He is the Spirit of God.

Why don't I change my mind and believe in evolution?

I feel I have been guided by the Holy Spirit. I am open for the Bible to tell me differently about evolution or creationism. I feel the Bible speaks in terms of creationism, not evolutionism.

I do not understand, please forgive me, why one feels they should change their interpretation of God's Word to be in accordance with what scientific men say. These men are like me, fallible. These men are unlike me, agnostic and in part atheists.

Well..you forget that there are many Christian scientist who also work on the Theory of Evolution and accept it, they read the same Bible as you and if you ask them they will too tell you that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. And then again..why if the Holy Spirit guides us then we find so many conflicting viewpoints between Christians? Maybe it is the result of NOT letting the Holy Spirit guide us? Maybe we are trusting more our own intellect and not making all our thoughts captive to Christ?

Are we, who are Christians, who truly seek God, being guided by the Holy Spirit? Are men of science trying to prove what they believe of the earth/universe to be true, guided by the Holy Spirit?

So if we, who are Christians, are guided by the Holy Spirit, why should one change their interpretation of the Bible to fit with these agnostics and atheists interpretation of evidence? Why not instead change the interpretation of the evidence?

Again..you assume that all scientist are atheists and are only working in a huge conspiracy against God.

As for changing the interpretation of the evidence, it depends on what you mean. If what you mean is to "force" the scientific method to agree with a certain interpretation of The Bible..then I will have to disagree with you. But if what you mean is that we accept the evidence available and interpret it according to The Bible..then it is fine, that is what I told in my previous post, what changes is our interpretation of The Bible and not the evidence or The Bible.

Might it being saying that the interpretation of evidence, provided by these scientists, is more correct then our interpretation of the Scriptures that is guided by the Holy Spirit? Honestly someone is not being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible. But in our pride we will argue, both you and I, that we are right. Since I have been in many of these discussions, I have been studying the Bible more intensly then I was. I am searching to see if I am wrong in my belief. I am open to be wrong. I would gladly be corrected by God. I have yet to find something to make me think other then I do.

Well, I claim no privileged access to any sort of special knowledge, I have the same access to the same information as you do. And I am also saying that I trust God both in his Word and his Creation and..like I said if there is any discrepancy between the two it is I who must correct my own thinking..far be from me of distorting God's Word to suit my own thinking!

Neither you or I is right..only God is.

I will not put my faith in understanding of the scriptures in men who do not even believe in God. I put my faith in the Holy Spirit to guide me and teach me, by reading the Bible, not scientific journals.

That is all good, but it doesn't means that we can't learn anything from scientific journals. We can obtain knowledge from them, and scientist are always working on understanding how God's Creation works and how we can best benefit from it. I think the better we understand how God's Creation works, the more we can appreciate it and the clearer the message of his Word becomes to us.

This is an issue of faith, no one was there, science cannot tell you for certain how it happened, they were not there. It is only their interpretation of the evidence, and if those who believe my interpretation can be wrong, so could the scientists interpretation of the evidence be wrong. I will continue to put my faith in the Holy Spirit to guide me. The Bible speaks of what happened and that is good enough for me. I do not need to add, alter, rephrase, or whatever else to make the Bible go with the flow and be consistent with today's scientific interpretation.

Well, that is all good..one thing tho. We must be careful when doing this..most would like to claim that they have a monopoly on the truth and reject everything that contradict what they consider to be the truth..even God.

 

[herev]

Many atheistic evolutionists dont beleive in God.

actually, by definition ALL atheistic evolutioist don't believe in God But all THEISTIC evolutionists do believe in God.

Maybe now. But would it have been right for man to rape and kill when they were still neoanderthals?

I know you keep saying you're serious, but really...1. neanderthals are not our direct ancestors and 2. even if they were, if we were still something else, then we werent' men. Is it right for dogs to rape (as if you could apply that term there) or lions, or bears?
We're not talking about the ancestors of humanity, we are talking about humanity. Evolution discusses how we got here, that's all, not the morals of those along or at the end of the evolutionary chain.

But in theistic evolution God set up the biological laws of evolution. These became the laws of nature. Gods laws of nature are that it is better to take than to receive because survival is based on it.

And yet God's laws for man are not that it is better to take than to receive, are they? Again, what the laws of nature were for our development have nothing to do with the laws of God for humanity.

But then we have Gods spiritual laws where humans are told not to be selfish and to be good to each other.

Yes, we do--which apply either way--whether or not we were evolved over millions of years or over the course of an afternoon.

Why did God set up biological laws (where sin is encouraged) that contradict His spiritual laws? (where holiness is encouraged)

God created us with free will. Due to free will, humanity doesn't exist in the preferred state that God intended. As to why God allows that--you'll have to ask Him.

Now granted the law of this world is selfishness and greed. However it was the fall of Man, his rebellion which brought this world to be run by the law of the jungle.Earth is dig eat dog because man chose it in the Garden of Eden.

Which is what I just said, see how we agree?

But in TE when God made the earth He designed it as a dog eat dog society.

Not true, TE's have many beliefs, but TE specifically only refers to the mechanism God used to create life--that's it--it stops there.
Many TE's do believe that there is nothing literal in Genesis 1-11. However, many of us believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall. I personally believe that humanity WAS created to contain the biological inclinations you refer to, but was then placed in the Garden where there was the opportunity to live in peace with one another and with God and with nature, but the fall ruined that.

I read a book in the libary on evolutionary theory. Now okay I can't recall what it was called and I do want to add the the writers werent implying that rape was morally good.

Good

The writer did however say that evolution favours men who are physically and mentally aggressive, thus male rapists are likely to survive and have most offspring.

The two parts of this sentence do not apply to each other in an ordered society with laws and a means of enforcing those laws. You may not mean to, but you are suggesting that physically and mentally aggressive males are likely to be rapists.

Again, TE does not discuss what happens after we were created, only the means by which we were. God's laws are in effect, as well as free will to ignore those laws, as well as the eternal consequences of the choice--no matter how you think we got here.

The writer did add that this was not excuse for people to do such things.

well that's a relief

However he did imply that evolutionary scientific laws do encourage rape and violence.

I think you certainly mean "favor" instead of "encourage." If not, the claim is ridiculous. If so, see above for my comments.

There are loads of books and essays on evolution which show that evolution promotes pologamy. A man wants his genes to be passed onto the next generation so he sleeps with as many women as possible thus leading to more desecendents.

As for the LDS, they might be creationists, however they do not follow the Bible in the way most Christians do. In fact (sorry if this sounds unfair) they are not even Christians. They reject so many important Christian doctrines and put their faith in the BOM and their own prophets. They are so far from the truth that their beleif on creation won't make a difference if they are wrongly interepting the rest of the Bible anyhow.

You've missed my point. Your original post suggested that evolution leads to polygamy, thus you don't like evolution. So I said, hey, there are plenty of literalists who have used literalism to support polygamy, and yet you don't reject literalism. Evolution is not the reason for some supporting polygamy nor is literalism the reason others do. The reason that a Christian (from either camp) would support polygamy is from an incorrect understanding of God's expectations--thus it is interpretation that is wrong in either camp, not the core belief in and of itself.

These 'Christians' might be literal Bible supporters and racist. They might well even use isolated passages to support racism. However I beleive that Christians arent only supposed to read the Bible literally, but take it as a whole and in context. This is something those 'Christians' obviously didnt do because I have checked and checked again. There is no support for racism when Gods Word is read literally, in context and as a whole.

Again, this is my point. Just because someone uses scripture (or a literal interpretation of it) to support racism doesn't mean the SCRIPTURE is bad, it means the interpretation of it is--same goes for evolution. YOu stated in the post: "With evolution one might say "Hey maybe black people are more stupid than white people because people dont need to be clever when they live in mud huts in the desert".
My point is that just because someone misuses evolution (as one may misuse the Bible) doesn't make the theory bad, it is in the improper use of it. So, there is no support for racism in evolution as well--in fact, evolution would dictate that there is NO difference between the races--we are all one race.

These people obviously rejected the teaching that we are all of One Blood.

Yes, they did--see how they misused scripture?

The Bible when read literally says that we are all decendents of Noah and the different races came about after the tower of Babel.

Actually it says that the different languages and scattering across the earth came about after the tower of Babel, to say it says new races were created is NOT to read it literally, but I support you in that if you want to say that--

but that's not the point.

But most strands of evolutionary theory, even TE, would reject that we are all decendants of 8 people who lived 4,500 (roughly) years ago.Evolution rejects a world wide flood and would certainly reject the idea that the father of all races was one of a handful people to survive it.

Again, don't confuse the different issues. TE deals only with origin theology, not the flood, not the rest of Genesis, not Exodus, not the Gospels. And-----We are not all alike.

Evolution shows that modern Africans are directly related to people living in Africa 45,000 years ago and not to some probably lightly tanned man who settled in the Middle East 4,500 years ago.

Evolution shows that we are ALL directly related to people living in Africa how ever many years ago, including even maybe Noah

And in many cases without the Bible too. The crusades and inquition were carried out when the Bible was in church hands and not available to the public. People were then fed heresys by the church such as salvation is given as a reward for killing Muslims etc... etc.....

Yes, but those leaders WERE reading the Bible and they could and did justify their views with the Bible. Once again, it is the misuse of the Bible that is the problem, just as it is the misuse of evolution that can cause problems, too.

No where in the Bible does it say we have to kill to get to heaven. The Bible clearly states that salvation comes by faith alone.

and guess what, no where in evolution does it say we have to kill to get into heaven, either??? I am a TE, I believe in salvation by faith just as you do!

Those atrocities which were carried out by people who did have an access to the Bible, were carried out by people who were clearly not reading it literally, in context and taken as a whole. In context for example the OT testament does not condemn mixed race marriages, but mixed faith/religion marriages. People reading about Solomans wives in context will see that when God is angry for Solomon taking "foreign women" as wives, it is not because they are of a foriegn race but of a foriegn religion. Storys such as Ruth show that there is no problem in marriage between Jew and Gentile so as long as they both worship the same God.

I think I've already answered all of these points, so we're in agreement, misuse of the Bible is just as bad as misues of the theory of evolution. Misuse of either doesn't mean either is bad in and of itself. If the above comments are not enough for you to "throw out" the Bible, then why throw out evolution for the very same reasons?

Racists who like to use the Bible for justification will be their own sinful hearts take everything out of context and select only isolated verses.

and racist who would use evolution to justify racism would be just as bad

No anti-semite racist 'christian' will accept verses such as "there is no difference between Jew and gentile. The same Lord is Lord of all".
They will prefer to pick and choose verses to suit them.

And no anti-semite racists evolutionist wants to accept what the scriptures say about these things either.
Good and bad in both camps--literal 6 days and evolution

This pick n choose is something which I beleive evolutionary theory encourages. i.e I'm rejecting the world wide flood or a literal Adam etc... etc....

And yet, those of us who actually ARE TE's keep telling you and others like you that it doesn't lead to this--I do not reject any part of the Bible--not one letter!!!!
I may interpret part of it differently than you, but it is my sacred text just as it is yours.

Once we reject a literal Adam (one which Jesus talks about) or Jonah or the flood; then why not reject all verses in the Bible which condemn racism.

Once again, we do not reject any of the Bible, we take it in context of the times during which it was written to discern its intended meaning. We look at likely genres and styles. We look at historical indications from the ancient Israelits and those nations they interacted with. WE look at creation itself--the most wonderful book God has ever penned--and we interpret differently.

No. You have just misunderstood. I am not saying creationists are pefect. There are many Creationists that are racist, sexist, violent etc etc.... Bin Laden for example is probably a Creationist.

Good, there are surely many evolutionists that are racist, sexist, violent as well, so the idea of rejecting one (evolution) because of it and not the other (creationism) is puzzling.

However it is impossible to reconcile racism with a literal, in context and take as a whole approach to the Bible.

agreed, and it is impossible to justify racism by any logical understanding of evolution, so now we're back to sqare one?

A racist would have to either reject literalism,the context or that all scripture is equally God breathed.

Yes, they would, whether or not they were creationists or evolutionists--this is a true statement.

 

[Asimis]

Are there times when we as Christians should believe agnostic scientists interpretation of evidence when it contradicts scripture? Thus changing our interpretation of scripture, which changes some of its meaning. The Bible teaches of testing all things against scripture. All things that come in contradiction. Did you test evolution, before you accepted it and changed your interpretation, against the scriptures? When you found conflict, you change your interpretation of the scriptures, instead of rejecting the theory of evolution. The Bible teaches you reject man's word when it conflicts with God's Word, not change your interpretation of the Bible to comply with man's word.

Again, not all scientist are atheists or agnostics.

Just out of curiousity, has science seen the ends of the universe? Can science say, conclusively that the earth is not in the center of the universe? I think this might suggest that science knows where the universe 'begins and ends' so to speak, so they can accurately say the earth is not in the center of it. Just a thought.

The may problem here is that you think science is another form of religion. It is not and science and religion SHOULD NOT be in conflict, some people would like to use science against religion or religion against science but they are only promoting their own goals and not that of God.

God gave us the capacity to understand his creation and gave us the desire to do so, why do you think we always seek knowledge? It is because God wants it that way, if we don't then we are just being arrogant and rejecting his gift.

 

[herev]

If Adam had pushed Eve off a cliff in Eden, Eve would not have done splat and died. She would have just hit the floor without any damage or pain. Pushing people off cliffs wasnt a sin in Eden and wont be a sin in Gods Kingdom.

Now that's an unusual understanding. So, what you're saying is that if I want to, once we get to heaven, you'll let me push you off a cliff? Do they have those in heaven?

Have to admit, that's an unusual thought.

 

[Asimis]

The theory of evolution underdemines Christian morality. If man is just an animal then what is wrong with him acting like an animal?

Oh but we know God created everything with us in mind. We are not just an animal neither should we act like if we are..far from it.

With evolution rapists are no longer destestable sinners but fine examples of dominant mammals. With evolution male pologamy is no longer rebellion against the Creator, but the natural way of ensuring that ones genes are passed on. With evolution one might say "Hey maybe black people are more stupid than white people because people dont need to be clever when they live in mud huts in the desert". The thing about this phrase is that under evolutionary theory it becomes a possibility. Under evolutionary law different intelligences based on race make perfect sense.
And then there is eugentics!

Almost every evil of the past 100 years has had somebody trying to justify it from evolutionary theory. There is hardly anything good about the theory.

Only 100 years? Well that is a far cry from the 2000 years of the misuse people have done with Christianity. Everything can be abused by people. Evolution does not promotes any form of morality neither does it accepts racism, polygamy or anything of the sort.

 

[Asimis]

Many atheistic evolutionists dont beleive in God.

This has no relevance to the soundness of the Theory of Evolution.

Maybe now. But would it have been right for man to rape and kill when they were still neoanderthals?
But in theistic evolution God set up the biological laws of evolution. These became the laws of nature. Gods laws of nature are that it is better to take than to receive because survival is based on it.
But then we have Gods spiritual laws where humans are told not to be selfish and to be good to each other. Why did God set up biological laws (where sin is encouraged) that contradict His spiritual laws? (where holiness is encouraged)
Now granted the law of this world is selfishness and greed. However it was the fall of Man, his rebellion which brought this world to be run by the law of the jungle. Earth is dig eat dog because man chose it in the Garden of Eden. But in TE when God made the earth He designed it as a dog eat dog society.

The natural laws were already in place before the theory of evolution came into the scene. People raped and killed before evolution came into the scene, people lied, cheated, engaged in wars, violence, engaged in polygamy, etc, etc, etc all before evolution came into the scene. So then..what does any of it has to do with the theory of evolution? Maybe it..instead of encouraging that type of behavior..points us at its origin and gives us an explanation for it.

I read a book in the libary on evolutionary theory. Now okay I can't recall what it was called and I do want to add the the writers werent implying that rape was morally good. The writer did however say that evolution favours men who are physically and mentally aggressive, thus male rapists are likely to survive and have most offspring. The writer did add that this was not excuse for people to do such things. However he did imply that evolutionary scientific laws do encourage rape and violence.

Again..people use any excuse to justify about anything they want. Some use Christianity, others Evolution and others politics, it is just how humans are. Evolution or not people would just find something else to justify their actions.

There are loads of books and essays on evolution which show that evolution promotes pologamy. A man wants his genes to be passed onto the next generation so he sleeps with as many women as possible thus leading to more desecendents.

May you please list these books and essays? All I have found are unsupported assertions made by Christians and other anti-evolutionists.

Evolution rejects a world wide flood and would certainly reject the idea that the father of all races was one of a handful people to survive it.

Evolution does not deals with any of this.

Evolution shows that modern Africans are directly related to people living in Africa 45,000 years ago and not to some probably lightly tanned man who settled in the Middle East 4,500 years ago.

One day for God is like a thousand years..remember?

 

[gluadys]

Just for your information, a good number of early Christians had actually seen the risen Christ.

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, emphasis mine)

God Bless,
Ceris

Correction noted. But it is still the case that most of the thousands baptized on Pentecost, as well as on subsequent occasions had only the testimony of the apostles as eye-witnesses, and that the apostles appealed to the fact that they had been chosen as eye-witnesses as the basis for trust in their testimony.

We also, have no testimony preserved given by one of those 500 except that of the apostles.

 

[gluadys]

I know you did not mean this, but I am a bit bothered by the equating of agnostic scientists with the Apostles of Christ.

1. A scientist is not necessarily agnostic. Many scientists are believers.

2. Even if some scientists are agnostic, that doesn't make their scientific testimony untrue. When I say the testimony is to be believed, it is not on the basis of the testimony of one scientist, who may or may not be a believer, but on the combined testimony of all scientists who have studied the evidence. When believing and unbelieving scientists agree on the scientific testimony, one needs more than the unbelief of some scientists to reject the science.

3. There is no need to place the apostles of Christ on a pedestal. They would be the first to tell you that they too are only human.

 

[gluadys]

The theory of evolution underdemines Christian morality. If man is just an animal then what is wrong with him acting like an animal?

It wasn't Darwin who first said that humans are animals. That was accepted fact in biblical times. All taxonomic classifications, even before Linnaeus, placed humans in the animal kingdom.

The fact that evolution also agrees that humans are biologically animals provides no more reason for immorality than Genesis 2 does when it depicts both Adam and the animals being formed out of dust.

 

[gluadys]

I believe men are all fallible. I believe, when one is truly digging into the Scriptures of God's Word to know Him, we are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is infallible, as He is the Spirit of God.

Why don't I change my mind and believe in evolution?

I feel I have been guided by the Holy Spirit. I am open for the Bible to tell me differently about evolution or creationism. I feel the Bible speaks in terms of creationism, not evolutionism.

I do not understand, please forgive me, why one feels they should change their interpretation of God's Word to be in accordance with what scientific men say. These men are like me, fallible. These men are unlike me, agnostic and in part atheists.

Are we, who are Christians, who truly seek God, being guided by the Holy Spirit? Are men of science trying to prove what they believe of the earth/universe to be true, guided by the Holy Spirit?

So if we, who are Christians, are guided by the Holy Spirit, why should one change their interpretation of the Bible to fit with these agnostics and atheists interpretation of evidence? Why not instead change the interpretation of the evidence?

Might it being saying that the interpretation of evidence, provided by these scientists, is more correct then our interpretation of the Scriptures that is guided by the Holy Spirit? Honestly someone is not being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible. But in our pride we will argue, both you and I, that we are right. Since I have been in many of these discussions, I have been studying the Bible more intensly then I was. I am searching to see if I am wrong in my belief. I am open to be wrong. I would gladly be corrected by God. I have yet to find something to make me think other then I do.

In the first place many scientists are not men. They are women. And in the second place many scientists are neither agnostic nor atheist. They are believers, and in many cases, Christian believers.

So a scientific consensus that a certain theory is the best theory for explaining the evidence includes men and women both and atheists, agnostics AND Christians and other believers. It is not a matter of pitting Christians against non-Christians.

Why should we change our interpretations of scripture to accord with science? Because science is also an interpretation of God's Word, as revealed in creation. The written word itself, testifies frequently to the fact that creation is also a testimony to God. So, as bible-believing Christians, we need to take the testimony of creation with seriousness. When scientists assure us that creation is giving a clear and consistent message about itself, it behoves us to consider that message to be a truth from God.

This is not to say we should simply roll over any time a scientist speaks and jettison something we believe we have heard in scripture. Every theory needs to be questioned and tested. But when there appears to be a conflict between the testimony of scripture and the testimony of creation, and there is little if any question left about the testimony of creation, the only other option is that the source of the apparent conflict is in a faulty interpretation of scripture.

Are scientists guided by the Holy Spirit? Who could say no? They may well be guided in their labours by the Holy Spirit. It is not only in the study of scripture that one may be led by the Holy Spirit.

So no, it is not being implied that the interpretation of evidence by scientists is more correct than an interpretation of scripture guided by the Holy Spirit. Rather the implication is that the intepretation of evidence by scientists may be guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore a fallible and incorrect interpretation of scripture must give way before it.

In cases where Christians on both sides of an issue believe they are following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one side must be wrong, but we have no clear way of discerning which it is at the time. Only the future will reveal that--or maybe only eternity.

You believe the Holy Spirit has led you to creationism. I am equally convinced the Holy Spirit led me to accept the truth of evolution and still uphold the truth of God's Word. I may be mistaken. But then, maybe it is you who are mistaken. So let neither of us judge the other, but follow the light that has been given to us and trust in the loving judgment of God.

 

[Vance]

Bonhoffer: you are starting off with a completely incorrect believe about what evolution says. Evolution is NOT survival of the most violent, most aggressive, etc. Survival of the Fittest is not at all a good way of describing evolution, as you would know if you had gotten your beliefs about evolution from somewhere legitimate rather than a Creationist source.

Fitness for evolution is simply ability to reproduce most effectively. That is all.

Please, please, find out what evolution means before you begin trashing it.

 

[adam149]

Greetings,

I was wondering why YECs oppose the Theory of Evolution so much. Is it the evidence or does it has to do more with the apparent biblical conflicts it poses?

Both.

I am not fully convinced about Macroevolution myself yet, but I am still looking into that matter. So maybe you guys have any evidence that either refutes Evolution or simply prevents you from accepting it? Or is it the lack of evidence that prevents you from accepting it?

The evidence comes from several lines, including the Bible, the history of pre-Christian cultures recording that they are descended from Noah, the overall philosophy of evolution (anti-God natualistic, humanistic, pantheistic paganism, a contention easily supported), scientific fields such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, and geology, and presuppositionalism, or the understanding that all things are interpreted through a framework of beliefs.

See the free online books Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/index.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/index.asp

I ask because most of the anti-evolution sites or arguments I see are mostly based on a couple of bible verses,

A couple of bible verses? How much of their works have you read? They marshal an overwhelming amount of Biblical verses.

Irreducible Complexity(ID) or a misrepresentation of Evolution in general(Dr. Dino and Answers in Genesis come to mind)l. In my opinion they are rather dissapointing since they do not provide an honest look at it.

First, I have been reading the scientific journals and books for over six years and have never come across a single time when AiG has misrepresented science or the claims of evolutionists. It is usually the anti-creationists who are not honest.

Second, if you yourself have knowledge of possible misrepresentation, I recommend you contact AiG <here for science related-http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=Scientific and here for theological related http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=Theological>

Third, you should document these claims. How exactly are they dishonest (after all, this is a strong charge to make and it needs to be supported emprically).

Fourthly, if you have gotten your information from a sceptical website such as Talk.Origins, I highly recommend you think twice since it is them who make gigantic blunders (such as Ian Plimer who claimed that the alphabet had 23 letters; or Talk.Origins confusing a YEC with an OEC, or their dishonest attacks on Henry Morris and Jerry Bergman, documented here and written by myself: http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=tomisrep).

If the problem is because of the apparent conflict with Christian doctrine, then I would be glad to hear what are the problems that you think Evolution poses to it.

See these chapters of Refuting Evolution 2:

Argument: Creationism is Religion, Not Science http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chapter1.asp

Argument: Evolution is Compatible with Christian Religion http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chapter2.asp

Also why do you think that the earth is only 10,000/6,000 years old?

There are a number of lines of evidence for this. E.G. Biblically we know this from an analysis of the Geneologies in Scripture and compare them to historical records elsewhere, which confirm that there is no gap between them and that they are father/son relationship progressions. For more info on this, read this book: http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

Also see this collection of articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Also see this chapter from Refuting Evolution:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

Hope these clarified a few things.

 

[Asimis]

First, I have been reading the scientific journals and books for over six years and have never come across a single time when AiG has misrepresented science or the claims of evolutionists. It is usually the anti-creationists who are not honest.

<snip>

Fourthly, if you have gotten your information from a sceptical website such as Talk.Origins, I highly recommend you think twice since it is them who make gigantic blunders (such as Ian Plimer who claimed that the alphabet had 23 letters; or Talk.Origins confusing a YEC with an OEC, or their dishonest attacks on Henry Morris and Jerry Bergman, documented here and written by myself

That is the main issue I have with both sides. It is like a couple of two year old boys fighting. Creationists bash Evolutionists and Evolutionist bash Creationist and in the process the spectator is left in a pool of confusion.

Like I said in my original post, I am not convinced of Macroevolution, I do accept that microevolution happens since it is just changes inside the same species but I have not found satisfying evidence for Macroevolution yet. It looks nice in drawings and illustrations but I think that the fossils are lacking. I am open to be corrected tho.

Now the other issue is that even if macroevolution is not true, it does not necessary follows that the earth is 10,000/6,000 years old. The earth could be older than that even without macroevolution but alas even that is in the battle field and one is left with a vague idea of what exactly are the real facts.

Oh and thanks for the links, I bookmarked them.

Have a good day,
Asimis

 

[adam149]

Which books did you read? I know of several scientist that are strong atheists and like to use Evolution to attack religious beliefs (Richard Dawkings comes to mind) but these are..as far as I know in the small minority. In the same manner there are Creationist books who dismiss Evolution as a hoax without giving it much thought. There are good and balanced books on the subject of Evolution and more specially on how it relates to God..have you read the book "Finding Darwin's God"? It has some good reviews on Amazon.

It has been thoroughly demolished. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp

As for Evolution "calling" the Bible a lie or a parable, I think this is a product of the same people I mentioned above. Evolution by itself is just a biological process, it neither deals with the origin of life (that is what Abiogenesis handles) nor does it promotes a naturalistic philosophical stance.

But it does promote naturalistic philosophical stances. Take the following comments by evolutionists:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."S.C. Todd, correspondence to Nature, 410(6752):423, Sept 30th, 1999

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31

"Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:
Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137–138, 1992

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences."M. Walker, "To have evolved or to have not? That is the question," Quadrant, Oct. 1981, pg. 45

In addition, scientists such as Steven Jay Gould have shown that Darwin's purpose was elliminating a designer of the universe (see C. Wieland, Darwin’s Real Message: Have You Missed It? Creation Ex Nihilo 14(4):16–19, September–November 1992). Evolution also allows people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists (see R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, (NY: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 6).

Well, maybe we need to have "faith" in those fossils even if they are not satisfying to us? We must remember that it is not our thinking but God's that matter and since God created the world and gave us his testimony in The Bible then we should not be afraid of looking at the world for answers since whatever apparent "conflict" we may find between His Creation and His Word should be nothing but the result of our own thinking.

No creationist would argue otherwise. This is, of course, the whole point. However, because Scripture is special revelation given us by God directly, it stands as magistrate over general revelation. It is our basis of interpretation. Which is why YECs believe in a young earth and everything else they do, because this is clearly taught in scripture.

But rather than have faith in the fossils of general revelation, we should have faith in the clear meaning of the Special Revelation of Scripture, even if all the evidence turned away from it.

I believe it is a matter of what God did and didn't do and not something that is up for us to decide. I also think, that the purpose of The Bible is not that of a science book but to get people to heaven. God created us with all the potential we have and it is his desire that we use it so in reality there is no need that everything we find in the world must be written in The Bible.

Take into consideration this statement by the greatest Apologist of the 20th century, Cornelius Van Til:

"If we are to defend Christian theism as a unit, it must be shown that its parts are really related to one another. We have already indicated the relation between the doctrine of Christ's work, the doctrine of sin, and the doctrine of God. The whole curriculum of an orthodoxy seminary is built upon the conception of Christian theism as a unit. The Bible is as the center not only of every course, but of the curriculum as a whole. The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly , but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It not only tells us of Christ's work, but also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the Word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.

This view of Scripture, therefore, involves the idea that there is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true information unless they take the Bible into account. We do not mean, of course, that one must go to the Bible rather than the laboratory if one wishes to study the anatomy of the snake. But if one goes only to the laboratory and not also to the Bible, one will not have a full or even true interpretation of the snake." Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 1976 (2003, 2nd ed.), Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, pg. 19-20

I hope this aided your understanding.

 

[Aeschylus]

Both.


The evidence comes from several lines, including the Bible, the history of pre-Christian cultures recording that they are descended from Noah, the overall philosophy of evolution (anti-God natualistic, humanistic, pantheistic paganism, a contention easily supported), scientific fields such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, and geology, and presuppositionalism, or the understanding that all things are interpreted through a framework of beliefs.

Rubbish evolution is a scientifc theory and it has nothing to do with pan-theism, etc. infact themajority of Christians worldwide hold evoltuion to be true. Secondly science overwhelemingly falsifies creationism.

First, I have been reading the scientific journals and books for over six years and have never come across a single time when AiG has misrepresented science or the claims of evolutionists. It is usually the anti-creationists who are not honest.

Which journals, AiG clearly misrepresents the views of science.

Fourthly, if you have gotten your information from a sceptical website such as Talk.Origins, I highly recommend you think twice since it is them who make gigantic blunders (such as Ian Plimer who claimed that the alphabet had 23 letters; or Talk.Origins confusing a YEC with an OEC, or their dishonest attacks on Henry Morris and Jerry Bergman, documented here and written by myself: http://www.creationtruths.com/default.aspx?do=Article&id=tomisrep).

This is defitnely dishonest because as far as I can discern talkorigins is not in anyway connected with Ian Plimer, all they have is a debate between him and Duane Gish.

Secondly this clearly illustartes AiG's dishonesty as I find it highly un,liekly taht Plimeris claiming that the English alphabet has 23 letters and infact the Latin alphabet (alphabetum) does have 23 letters.

See these chapters of Refuting Evolution 2:

Argument: Creationism is Religion, Not Science http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chapter1.asp

cretaionism is a religion

Argument: Evolution is Compatible with Christian Religion http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chapter2.asp

Evolution is comaptible with Christianity.

 

[Asimis]

In addition, scientists such as Steven Jay Gould have shown that Darwin's purpose was elliminating a designer of the universe (see C. Wieland,Darwin’s Real Message: Have You Missed It?[/color][/u] Creation Ex Nihilo 14(4):16–19, September–November 1992). Evolution also allows people to be intellectually fulfilled atheists (see R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, (NY: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 6).

Well I have a very low opinion of Dawkins since he is very anti religions and has a very biased opinion.

No creationist would argue otherwise. This is, of course, the whole point. However, because Scripture is special revelation given us by God directly, it stands as magistrate over general revelation. It is our basis of interpretation. Which is why YECs believe in a young earth and everything else they do, because this is clearly taught in scripture.

But rather than have faith in the fossils of general revelation, we should have faith in the clear meaning of the Special Revelation of Scripture, even if all the evidence turned away from it.

This I disagree with. I would agree with you if you say that general revelation must be interpreted according to Scripture but not dismissed entirely if an apparent conflict rises. If the earth is really billions of years old then it is billions of years old and what must change is not Scripture or the evidence but our interpretation of it.

Take into consideration this statement by the greatest Apologist of the 20th century, Cornelius Van Til:

I hope this aided your understanding.

Thanks for the quote, I am familiar with Van Til and his position on Christian Epistemology. Did you know that he was a Theistic Evolutionist? I have read a couple of letters he wrote to Platntinga over this matter.

 

[adam149]

That is the main issue I have with both sides. It is like a couple of two year old boys fighting. Creationists bash Evolutionists and Evolutionist bash Creationist and in the process the spectator is left in a pool of confusion.

Unfortunately, this is often-times far too true. Yet, at the same time, as Christians we have an apologetics mandate and should answer critics. The reader is then left to wonder which side is actually right.

Like I said in my original post, I am not convinced of Macroevolution, I do accept that microevolution happens since it is just changes inside the same species but I have not found satisfying evidence for Macroevolution yet. It looks nice in drawings and illustrations but I think that the fossils are lacking. I am open to be corrected tho.

You are correct. The fossil evidence is lacking, and so is any biological support that macro could occur anyway.

Now the other issue is that even if macroevolution is not true, it does not necessary follows that the earth is 10,000/6,000 years old. The earth could be older than that even without macroevolution but alas even that is in the battle field and one is left with a vague idea of what exactly are the real facts.

Granted, you are correct in that a failure of macroevolution doesn't prove a young earth. However, there are many processes which would indicate such. I would also disagree with your contention that "one is left with a vague idea of what exactly are the real facts." We all have the same facts, merely interprete them differently. Facts always require interpretation through an a priori framework of beliefs. Thus, the real issue is not the facts themselves but the interpretetation of said facts. Since we believe in God, and God is the creator of the universe, He therefore is the one who determines the proper interpretation. This goes for whether one believes in an old earth or young, whichever it is, it should be in accord with Scripture, and there should be legitimate explanations for material processes which will support Scripture.

Oh and thanks for the links, I bookmarked them.

No problem. I hope they are helpful to you.