Science and the evolution of Christianity - scope for understanding?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on November 13, 2011 at 3:56pm

Grazer  as I posted before  I thank God for His work in evolving me from a non-believer to a follower of Christ. Darwinism in my mind is untrue yet evolution a process of evolving is quite true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 13, 2011 at 5:11pm

Grazer what,

 

None of it refutes your post, come on dude, read the post and not just give a one liner answer, which does nothing for the argument, whether evolution is compatible with Christianity or not.

 

Show me that evolution is compatible with Christianity, come on man, show me, explain it to me man. You keep giving me this one liners, i am waiting for some real arguments.

 

Whether evolution is true is a seperate argument from what, and how can evolution be compatible with the Christian faith if it's not true?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The evidence based Stig on November 14, 2011 at 3:41am

Assuming evolution is true, what you have is a mechanism. This does not exclude an agent that designed the mechanism. Second, an explanation in one area does not exclude or conflict with another as given in the example of Henry Ford and the internal combustion engine. The likes of dawkins would have people believe that the theory of evolution disproves or does not need god. It does nothing of the sort, dawkins is putting much more weight onto the theory than what it can handle. This is a flaw of dawkins not the theory.

Collins in his book leaves no room for doubt on his views. He believes the earth is old and that the commonality between all spieces, small changes accumulating to result in bigger changes does, in part, explain life on this earth. The difference between Collins and dawkins is that Collins sees a designer behind it and that designer is god.

Now, looking at the text of genesis, lennox raises some interesting points. Scripture could be interpreted as saying the earth is fixed and that was the accepted view by most scientistists. Now its accepted that the earth does move and the same scripture can be interpreted differently without questioning its integrity. With the days in genesis, in the original Hebrew, whilst the definite article "ha" it is not used days one to five but is for days six and seven. A better translation would be "a first day, a second day, the sixth day, the seventh day" As lennox goes on to say, these are the facts, how should we interpret them?

This really is no different to science and how the theory of evolution was formed. We now know that all spieces have common genetic traits (humans are 95% similar to chimps and 50% similar to a banana) Spieces have evolved over time of which natural selection is a factor. How do we best explain these facts? Shared common ancestry is one conclusion and one the bible agrees on (we are all descended from Adam are we not?) But for the theory to work you need a long enough timeline. At this point I will again defer to john lennox who puts it as succinctly as ever:

"Of course I am well aware that the biological theory of evolution demands an ancient earth and for many people this is a major factor in their thinking. However, the cosmological evidence is completely independent of biology and it is therefore perfectly possible to accept that cosmological evidence without committing oneself to the belief that life has arisen by an un-guided materialistic evolutionary process. It is simply false to suggest, as some do, that the only alternative to young earth creationism is to accept the darwinian model"

I briefly touched on the issue of fixed earth and highlighted that it was the accepted model of science at the time. Now it isn't yet no one has any issues with interpreting scripture differently to conform with this view. Or maybe science showed there was more than one way to interpret those passages (a face value reading clearly suggests the earth does not move) I don't see how this issue is any different. As lennox (and many others demonstrate), there is more to the genesis text than simply the earth was created in 6 days (light came before the sun? But we know and the bible confirms later that if you block out the sun you lose light so how can there be light without a something to produce the light? I think it was origen who first raised this and it still stands today)

I'm not actually bothered if the universe is 6000 years old or billions and god used evolution as his way of creating life in this world. What matters is that we were created by a loving god. What does bother me is the insistence that evolution theory is incompatible with the faith. You can interpret genesis literally and conclude the earth is young or you can interpret it literary and conclude the earth is old. All that concerns me is that people feel they have to choose between science/evolution and god and that is not a choice that they need to face because its two completely different things. In this case you can have your cake and eat it too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on November 14, 2011 at 5:30am

Amen  God is the creator  I would also like to add for some of us evolution does not mean we evolved from primates. Evolution is simply a proces of change any change.  I feel we have to stop automatically equating evolution with Darwinism. I t strongly believe this is a weapon of the enemy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The evidence based Stig on November 14, 2011 at 5:57am

I feel we have to stop automatically equating evolution with Darwinism

Absolutely agree and I've probably been a little slack on that front of late.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 14, 2011 at 1:16pm

Grazer, 

 

>>Assuming evolution is true, what you have is a mechanism

 

A mechanism that is NEVER alluded to when God is creating in scripture. A mechanism that is alien to God's holy and perfect word. A mechanism that is use by the majority of its proponents to eliminate God. A mechanism that ultimately is use to teach that the belief in God is useless and for the ignorant. I understand that the bible is not a science book and does not touch on every law that governs the natural world. When the bible does mention, in the language of the day, a natural law, it's always right. But I understand that the fact that evolution is not mention in the word, does not automatically excluded it from being true. A very rushed study of the history of the "mechanism" or better yet, of the theory of evolution, would leave anyone without a doubt that the adherents to evolution have from its genesis used it to explain creation from purely natural causes and have pridefully determined for humanity that God is obsolete. Further down the history of evolutionary theory, which is extremely recent and well documented, there came very liberal theologians who did not start housing the theory because of its undeniable truth, but mainly because of peer pressure and lack of scriptural knowledge. Theologians that are more concerned with being accepted by the world than being true to scripture. Money hungry wolves who want to make a name for themselves. I don't doubt that a few, very few, were well intended ones, who were caught up in the liberal nonsense of those days. Liberal theologians have not only had a negative effect in the world in regards to the topic at hand, but they have also damage the Church with their cavalier interpretation of scripture and at times complete rebellion against scriptural authority in other sectors of Christian beliefs and practices. You have liberal theologians that find biblical reasons for supporting a homosexual lifestyle today. If there is a market or/and an audience for something out there, you better believe that the scientist and scholars will soon be erupted to fulfill the needs of our depravity. In some cases they will create the market for their own gain and popularity. This is not new or fiction, any one aware of the days we are living in has to be blind, to negate it.

 

>>This does not exclude an agent that designed the mechanism.

 

The mechanism is not needed. God never said He used a mechanism, scientist think they have found one, but millions, after examining their findings, find lakes of inconsistency in their theories. God said:

 

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

God did not say, let there be a process or mechanism from which light will emerge.

 

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

24. Let the earth bring forth - He descends to the sixth day, on which the animals were created, and then man. Let the earth,' he says, bring forth living creatures.' But whence has an element (the power to create) life? Therefore, there is in this respect a miracle as great as if God had begun to create out of nothing those things which he commanded to proceed from the earth. And he does not take his material from the earth, because he needed it, but that he might the better combine the separate parts of the world with the universe itself. Yet it may be inquired, why He does not here also add his benediction? I answer, that what Moses before expressed on a similar occasion is here also to be understood, although he does not repeat it word for word. I say, moreover, it is sufficient for the purpose of signifying the same thing, [79] that Moses declares animals were created according to their species:' for this distribution carried with it something stable. It may even hence be inferred, that the offspring of animals was included. For to what purpose do distinct species exist, unless those individuals, by their several kinds, may be multiplied? [80] Calvin

 

>>I don't need to choose between both and more than I need to choose between the internal combustion engine and Henry Ford.

 

One does not need to choose between Henry and the engine, of course not they are separate entities. Ford never said, hey world, I created a way (a mechanism) for the engine through trial and error put itself together. Check it out yall.

 

Henry Ford said - hey you ‘all I created and engine. Henry Ford is a distinct entity than what he created.

 

God never said : And let there be a mechanism from which life fructuously comes about, through chance and trial, by purely natural causes hahaha hahaha that is funny. hahaha

 

We do need to choose between God the creator or God the creator of mechanisms that have been use for hundredths of years to prove there is no God. Oh but now we have scientist that state that we do not have to choose, so I am jumping on that wagon; not happening dude. Let every man be a liar and our Lord be true. God created in six days his creation. The arguments to challenge that biblical truth are in no way convincing and they do damage to the biblical text and testimony.

 

>>He believes the earth is old and that the commonality between all spices, small changes accumulating to result in bigger changes does, in part, explain life on this earth.

 

Is this in the bible, no? Is this a logical conclusion from science, no? God created creatures after their kind, not creatures that would evolve into something else or a different kind. No evidence of such a thing happening.

 

>>With the days in genesis, in the original Hebrew, whilst the definite article "ha" it is not used days one to five but is for days six and seven. A better translation would be "a first day, a second day, the sixth day, the seventh day" As Lennox goes on to say, these are the facts, how should we interpret them?

 

What theologian said that a better translation would be “a first day, a second day etc... Because some of the most blessed minds in the world agree with the translation: the first day; Augustine, Calvin, Aquinas etc... to name a few.

 

>>This really is no different to science and how the theory of evolution was formed. We now know that all species have common genetic traits (humans are 95% similar to chimps and 50% similar to a banana) Species have evolved over time of which natural selection is a factor.

God - does not take his material from the earth, because he needed it, but that he might the better combine the separate parts of the world with the universe itself.

 

Macroevolution teaches that all life has developed from a single, original cell, and that this happened through a somewhat fortuitous, chance collision of atoms, without an intelligent planner or Creator orchestrating the emergence of these species. Those who favor the day-age theory often link themselves with a position called theistic evolution, which grants the basic premises of biological evolution, but says that God, not chance, guided the process of evolution.

 

In the recent past in Russia, leading international scholars who favor macroevolution met. While comparing notes, they found that the weakest evidence for their theories is the fossil record. I remember reading the Royal Society’s bulletin at that time and thinking, “What other source matters?” The fossil record is the one that counts, and yet that is the one that militates against their theory. I read an essay recently in which a professor argued for macroevolution on the basis of certain geological formations. He argued for an old earth on the ground that stratifications in the rocks contain fossils, which indicates a uniformitarian process that took millions of years to produce the whole formation. He then determined the age of each stratum by determining the kinds of fossils contained in each. This is a blatant example of what logicians call begging the question. It is circular reasoning to date the fossils by the rocks, and then date the rocks by the fossils. That just will not work.

 

We now have good evidence that stratification of rocks proves the antiquity of nothing. Within days after the Mount St. Helens explosion had subsided, scientists discovered that the cataclysmic upheaval of that volcanic explosion had laid down exactly the same rock stratification that had been assumed would take millions of years to develop. In other words, Mount St. Helens proved that catastrophic upheavals can produce the same empirical data as twenty million years of gradual deposition. We will not get into uniformitarianism or catastrophism here, except to say that they have been attempts to accommodate macroevolution. This tends to support and popularize the theory of theistic evolution, and it also uses the day-age theory of Genesis—a dangerous thing to do. Sproul

 

Common substance does not equate to common source. It may appear that way and it does seemed to be a logical conclusion, but the gap in the DNA from a chimpanzee to a human is a vast one in DNA structure. Too great to be bridge by chance or a mechanism left themselves to figure it out. Common substance does call for the same creator.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on November 14, 2011 at 3:01pm

Again David you have made a fantastic arguement against Darwins theory. And I believe you to be right Darwin's theory is rubbish. But please lets not eliminant the english language because one man comes up with a rubbish theory.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The evidence based Stig on November 15, 2011 at 3:07am

So because the bible doesnt mention mechanisms like DNA replication, the oceans moving to circulate heat round the globe, we should discount these as well?

Lennox cites an old testament scholar, I will get his name when I get home.

Re: Ford comment. I'm not saying that neither is anyone else I've mentioned. Darwin, dawkins and the like are saying that but you'll note I'm not agreeing with them. Neither am I dismissing an entire theory on the basis of people over stretching its limits. You will note that at no point have I removed the need for god in this. Quite the opposite.

I will await your views on the churches change in view over the earth being fixed.

Ultimately this is about the interpretation of Genesis (at least the issues between you and I are anyway) You hold to a literal 6 day, young earth interpretation and that is your right, you have good reasons for doing so. I disagree (as is my right) and I have good reasons in scripture to question that interpretation. I see no reason why the theory of evolution, with God as it's creator, is incompatible with the Christian faith.

Let's also focus on where we agree because I think that is important too. We both agree Darwin's theory has its flaws, especially on the issue of not needing God for it. We both agree that god created this world and without him we have nothing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 15, 2011 at 7:48am

Grazer,

 

I already explain that a mechanism does not have to be in the word for us to accept it as truth, BUT it does have to be truth. The mechanism of DNA duplication was created by God and could have never in a gazillion years come about by natural causes.

 

Bro I understand your stance. "God created the mechanism," yes indeed God created the mechanism, but not through evolution, no evidence for that. God put into place a completed mechanism without the need for gazillions of years for it to evolve. In some cases the creation has the God given capacity to adopt, but that is far from becoming new specie.  

 

>>I will await your views on the churches change in view over the earth being fixed.

 

If you were reading my posts, which explain why we as Christians cannot accept that the mechanism came about through natural selection, then you would not be waiting. I already dealt with that question. No one is saying that mechanisms are not in place. There are millions of them in place by God. God does not support the view that God put into place mechanism that through natural selection evolved into what we now have.

 

Adam, vegetation and all of the rest of creation was created with entire mechanism in place when God spoke them into existence.

 

>>I disagree (as is my right) and I have good reasons in scripture to question that interpretation. I see no reason why the theory of evolution, with God as its creator, is incompatible with the Christian faith.

 

I love you and I care about you but I do not care what this text or any other text means to you (your opinion about it). I CARE WHAT THIS TEXT MEANS. I Love you enough to tell you that I can care less about your interpretation or your opinion about these matters, the church has fallen into postmodernism, with such phrases. I hope you love me enough not to respect my OPINION. It is my God given commandment and yours to find out what scripture is saying and not what we think scripture is saying. It is our task to find out what scripture is saying by interpreting scripture with scripture. The entire bible backs up a literal 6 days 24 hours creation. Tell me what the author of the bible (God) is communicating in what He wrote. That is our task, not to tell you what the text means to me or Lennox or Calvin, but by studying all the above and first of all, seeking the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. That is how we arrive at the ONE meaning of the text. 

 

We go to bible studies and we go around the room asking the participants to tell us what the verse being study means to them, that is ok, but what we need to ask is: what does the text mean? The correct question drives us to the right method. It matters what the author meant by the text and not what we can get out of the text.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on November 15, 2011 at 8:40am

Yes David it matters what the text means and I am patiently waiting to find out. Find out what God meant not what you think it means or I think it means. That day will be very exciting in the mean time I look at scripture as a whole and I see in many places where God's timing is not ours. I also understand that man in God's command evolved to a much shorter life span and again throughtout the years has evolved to a longer life span. Also history has shown man's stature primarily in height has evolved. The idea of evolving form one species to another I agree is quite evident in scripture as not being true. Although in the animal kingdom there are those that through interbreeding have developed some strange creatures although I don't think a whole new species.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 16, 2011 at 10:39am

Dean,

 

>>it matters what the text means and I am patiently waiting to find out. Find out what God meant not what you think it means or I think it means.

 

Dean for 99.9% of biblical truths none of us has to wait to find out what the Lord means to reveal to us by His word until we are in his presence. He is not a God of confusion and the bible is not a book full of codes. LT did a wonderful job describing forms of literature found in the bible: Take poetry as poetic writing, take allegory as allegoric writing, take history as historic writing and take prophecy as prophetic writing. We must also bridge the gaps between language, history, culture, and geography to get a full understanding of the word.

 

Above all we need the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, our teacher.

 

We can know what the text means, not what it means to you or to me, but what God intents to communicate to us. It takes some diligent studying and discerning, but it is very attainable. It is a joyful task.

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on November 16, 2011 at 10:55am

Oh yes  agree totally David God will reveal His truths very plainly He is not a God of confusion.

The diligent syudy and discerning  of scripture is a joyful task.

I am also sure that all those that disagree with your thoughts and theories  fell much the same way.

Yes we do know God's intent and strange thing is  most of those that disagree on meaning seem to understand the same intenet.

 

Have you ever noticed  most disagreements are about things  like 6 days 600 days 6000 days.  something that we can either take literal as we understand or for those who choose cn take scripture as a whole and not see it as literal.  Things that really have no great bearing on God's intent. Oh should have clarified disagreements amongst believers.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page