Theistic Evolution - Gospel Friendly? from Papa Giorgio.
Many Atheists here claim there is such a thing as a Christian that believes in evolution. I certainly have argued against that point many times. Today, we come across this presentation that nails that claim to the cross, so to speak. So if you wish to claim there are Christians that believe in evolution in the future, I will merely point you to this post which answers that question thoroughly. As I have said in the past, there are certainly false converts (Mark 4:5-6) that may believe in all sorts of things. These people though, have never been Christians.
Spoiler alert:
UPDATE: In reflection, instead of being so dogmatic, I guess I will concede that there may be Christians that believe in evolution but at the very least, "The Evolutionary Paradigm Breeds Atheists"
.
ReplyDeleteHis last sentence of his closing remarks was direct:
"...theistic evolution is the greatest threat to Evangelical Christianity in England at this present time."
.
More of the "false convert" lie? If christianity had any merit, you would have no cause to say anyone was a "false convert." There are christians who believe in evolution. There are also deceivers who find that fact inconvenient and say "false convert."
ReplyDeleteWait ... so presumably the first speaker was arguing that Christian Faith WAS compatible with evolution?
ReplyDeleteSo he isn't a Christian, Dan?
Evolution is irrelevant in this topic actually. What you really mean is a Christian must believe exactly what you believe Dan. No room for differing opinions?
Orange,
ReplyDelete>>Evolution is irrelevant in this topic actually.
Well not really. God speaks of fruit of the believer and a claim of evolution is fruit of a non believer.
Here is the difference:
As a YEC I believe the earth and universe are young. Now that claim does not violate or go against the message of God. So, if I am wrong, it will not jeopardize my Salvation. It was merely a misunderstanding of God's Word. Its not a deal breaker.
Macro-Evolution, on the other hand, directly opposes God's Word and violates the trust that we are to have with God. If mistaken it is because there is no trust in God's claims of Creation. It is a deal breaker.
The person arguing to the positive that faith is compatible with evolution cannot be a Christian by definition. That person has to discount the Bible, entirely, to make such a claim. To read the Bible like Aesop's fables is a violation of the understanding of God and His Word. The Bible is obviously and in fact written plainly as a historical narrative. To claim otherwise is in direct conflict with God and His Word.
Can someone claim that we do not have to believe in the resurrection to be a Christian, when it is the foundation of our beliefs? Of course not, same with evolution claims.
Micro-evolution, you believe in that yes? Adaptation, change within "kinds", etc? Cat breeds? All cats, yes? Tiger? Lion? Are they related to cats?
ReplyDeleteMacro-evolution isnt a different process. There is no barrier between micro/macro. It's an imaginary barrier, it only exists because you have to believe it's there in order for your unchanging beliefs to remain unchanging. It's just scale.
You DO believe in evolution Dan. And you're a Christian.
Orange,
ReplyDelete>>Macro-evolution isnt a different process. There is no barrier between micro/macro.
That is a wild leap of assumptions that requires evidence. Have any?
>>You DO believe in evolution Dan. And you're a Christian.
I cry foul. General Definition Fallacy
Like PapaG just pointed out, the terms have to be defined.
If you are claiming that plants and humans, or apes and humans, or sheep and lions, are related then I obviously disagree. If you claim that there are variations in dogs or cats, within their respective families, then I will consider the evidence. I am not entirely convinced though that house cats and tigers are related, just yet. Any evidence to show that claim? No? The jury is still out on that theory then.
first and foremost i am an atheist...Im here to defend the concept of evolution through a christian perspective...... if your god is all knowing.. creation and evolution are no different... he could have created the first cell and known immediately that one day humans would develop... takes too long? what is "time" to an all powerful god? also the whole: it took so many days to make the earth... a day is defined as one rotation of the planet... IF THERES NO EARTH THERES NO DAYS... the word that was translated to a "day"
Deletewas probably a vague unit of time...
xenigmatistx,
DeleteHow do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
When I see someone asking about a "barrier" between microevolution and macroevolution, I think in terms of asking for a demonstration of a wall that prevents you from walking from Florida to the moon. The very question assumes they are contiguous. For evolution, the point is in dispute; for the moon, the point is known to be false.
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree with the creationist in that video. Probably the only subject related to evolution/religion we would agree on though. I don't see how Christianity and evolution are compatible, but I'd say that it is an observable fact that there are people who accept Christ as their saviour and believe in evolution. Maybe they have flaws in the way they make them compatible or maybe they just haven't thought about it that much, but they do exist. Worldwide, they might even be the majority. It's a pretty egregious attempt at denying reality on your part to simply define Christian as someone who doesn't believe in evolution. You can't win an argument by defining yourself to be right.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDelete"As a YEC I believe the earth and universe are young. Now that claim does not violate or go against the message of God. So, if I am wrong, it will not jeopardize my Salvation. It was merely a misunderstanding of God's Word. Its not a deal breaker."
You are certainly free to believe that, but you are also at odds with physics, geology, paleontology, and chemistry.
So as long as you don't try to teach that crud in the public schools to my kids, have at it.
If you think that any scientific disovery that contradicts your interpretation of the bible should be dismissed then you should look at all the science and technology that originally was dismissed by bible interpretation.
And yes, by your interpretation science does prove the bible is merely a cultural artifact.
pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteWhen I see someone asking about a "barrier" between microevolution and macroevolution, I think in terms of asking for a demonstration of a wall that prevents you from walking from Florida to the moon. The very question assumes they are contiguous. For evolution, the point is in dispute; for the moon, the point is known to be false.
Surely the point about evolution is that the term "macro" simply refers to the compound effects of small scale evolution. What prevents it being contiguous? It isnt describing a different process, unlike say macro/micro economics.
"Surely the point about evolution is that the term 'macro' simply refers to the compound effects of small scale evolution."
ReplyDeleteThat's about as "sure" as everyone "believing in the christian god, just that some people suppress it." That is, it's not sure at all.
"What prevents it being contiguous?"
And you proceed with begging the question. And, despite the different wording, you are going right back to "they are contiguous; show me the barrier." Nothing has been established about whether they are contiguous or not. They could be discontiguous, and we lack the perspective to prove it. Or they could be contiguous, and we lack the perspective to prove that.
But I'll leave you with something else to think about. It is possible for all the mountains to have been constructed with human tools. There are no barriers to it. There's no reason to believe it happened that way, either; and, in fact, I believe it didn't happen that way. But a call of "it's obvious; show me the barrier" would be just as honest.
Answers in Genesis disagrees
ReplyDelete"Salvation is not in any way dependent upon our beliefs about evolution or the age of the earth—only in the atoning work of Jesus Christ"
Bathtub,
ReplyDelete>>Answers in Genesis disagrees
Thanks for that. That was a huge surprise.
In reflection you may be right. For evolution to matter in our Salvation would mean that Salvation requires something, on our part by us, to be saved. In other words, Christ alone would not be enough for our salvation. That is definitely not the case. I am kind of stuck because I don't think one can "trust in Christ" and not trust Him (His Word) at the same time. It is possible that I may be a bit dogmatic about it though. Could I be wrong? Yes, certainly I could be. I feel that the evolution doctrine is so damaging I do not see it as "good fruit" or from God. So damaging that it pulls saved people away from Christ? No, absolutely not.
You're right I guess though, there could be Christians that are still duped into that belief. I then ask myself why? Why does the devil want so many people to believe in evolution if it is not even a factor in people's Salvation.
Good job though, you stood me up and I like that. Truth, and the pursuit of it, is the point of all this after all. I will think more about it though. Maybe God will reveal something that I am missing.
pvb
ReplyDeleteOK, so the argument is that there is some barrier between small scale evolution and the compound effects of those same small scale changes. There is no evidence of any such barrier. For all I know, there is one, but biologists don't believe so.
Proponents of Dan's position have no evidence either for this barrier - it only exists as a belief because it must be true for Christians such as Dan and PG to be correct about "kinds".
Its like the question of Gods, science isnt saying they dont exist. Just theres no evidence. Similarly, theres no evidence of a barrier in evolution to maintain "kinds".
Surely? ("don't call me Shirley")
"You're right I guess though, there could be Christians that are still duped into that belief. I then ask myself why? Why does the devil want so many people to believe in evolution if it is not even a factor in people's Salvation."
ReplyDeleteYou know, there is a very simple answer to this... :P
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"So if you wish to claim there are Christians that believe in evolution in the future, I will merely point you to this post which answers that question thoroughly."
And, since you never seem to recall what goes on in the comments sections, when you do link back to this post, you will be reminded that Answers in Genesis disagrees and you have stated that you could be wrong. Fair?
"Good job though, you stood me up and I like that. Truth, and the pursuit of it, is the point of all this after all."
The pursuit of truth? Really? If you were genuinely interested in the truth, you would have posted the whole debate, not just the side of the argument you already agree with. Have you actually even seen the rest of the debate or are you simply happy to pluck away at those cherries?
"I will think more about it though. Maybe God will reveal something that I am missing."
Indeed. Or failing that, you could just post the video arguing the other side of this debate. It might also 'reveal something'...
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteI am considering Tub's point by admitting that I could be wrong about anything. I am not that closed minded to be so viciously dogmatic that I cannot see the truth. If I am wrong I will say so (and I will update the post) but for now I just cannot reason how trusting in Christ(Salvation), and not trusting in Christ (Creation), one can become a Christian although many disagree. I am researching the Biblicality of it though. It may have been a premature post but I will just leave it for now.
Christ alone saves, hopefully He will save me from this minor dilemma that I am having.
I wish I had more of the debate, maybe you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and fund it for me?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteGlad you admit that you could be wrong about anything. It's a much more honest position to hold. Trouble is, it's inconsistent with the presuppositionalist position of 'absolute certainty', which you claim to subscribe to. Someday you're going to have to face up to this.
"I wish I had more of the debate, maybe you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and fund it for me?"
Ha! Good luck. You're the one who asks people to donate money to your 'ministry'. How much have you made from donations so far? What have you spent it on exactly?
Dan, you should check out people like Glen Morton, or this "Darth_Toolpodicus" guy on Vox Day's blog (he's an Old Earther like Hugh Ross.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe in an old earth, then I suspect you may also believe in some form of evolution; just that it was "guided" by your god.
Read his posts, and try telling him that being a YECer is the only way to go! He claims that the YEC view is the younger, false view!
God, why can't you clowns get your stories straight?
Reynond,
ReplyDeleteYea I know all too well about the Hugh Ross's of the world, I just believe they may be wrong.
>>God, why can't you clowns get your stories straight?
Whatever dude, you mean like atheists do? We all have our various takes on this planet but there is only one truth. I lean to God as telling the truth more then man. Some of us will be wrong and I celebrate that day when we all find out. Truth is the goal.
Like I said being a YEC or an OEC doesn't affect our salvation, Atheism surely does.
Yes, I just called you Shirley.
But Atheists aren't some collective being told what's what by some All Knowing Overlord.
ReplyDeleteTub,
ReplyDelete>>But Atheists aren't some collective being told what's what by some All Knowing Overlord.
Darwin comes to mind for that position. "Self" is another. You are not fooling us.
What? that doesn't even make sense.
ReplyDeleteWhatever dude, you mean like atheists do?
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, because there are just so many ways of not believing in any god...
You'd have to look at different aspects of atheists outside of the "not believing in any god" to find that level of disagreement. Though once you go beyond that "not believing in any god" stuff, it's out of the realm of atheism itself.
Darwin is dead, Dan. He doesn't tell us what to do, even in his books he doesn't. He just laid the groundwork for a scientific theory that go altered and elaborated on as new evidence came in.
His own theory got altered over time, that should tell you that "atheists" don't take marching orders from him.
Geez, are you getting more and more stupid or something?
Dan:
ReplyDelete"I lean to [a g]od as telling the truth more then man."
Or, more accurately, you lean to men who claim to be speaking on behalf of this god.
Dan replied to Oranges,
ReplyDeleteMacro-evolution isnt a different process. There is no barrier between micro/macro.
That is a wild leap of assumptions that requires evidence. Have any?
Well-established lines of descent between ancient species and modern species. The theory of evolution postulates transitional forms. Many have been found in the fossil record, such as those tracking the evolution of whales from land-based animals, from theropod dinosaurs to birds, from fish to amphibians to reptiles. This is exactly what one would expect if what you call "macroevolution" occurred. Sure, we can't directly observe it, but we can make very plausible inferences on the basis of existing evidence. It's certainly a more plausible and parsimonious inference than that an eternally-existing, complex creative intelligence poofed all these animals into existence from nothing. That requires a gigantic leap of faith, in that it postulates an additional entity for which we have absolutely no credible evidence.
The ironic thing is that the kinds of transitions for which we lack direct fossil evidence are species-to-species transitions - what you creationist types refer to as "microevolution", and that only because you can't deny something for which there is direct observational and experimental evidence (at least without ending up with egg on your faces...)
I am not entirely convinced though that house cats and tigers are related, just yet. Any evidence to show that claim? No? The jury is still out on that theory then.
ReplyDeleteSurely you jest, Dan. The anatomical evidence alone speaks for itself. Even other creationists, when pressed, have acknowledged that domestic cats, tigers, lions, leopards, fishing cats, etc. constitute one feline 'kind'.
Dormantdragon,
ReplyDelete>>The theory of evolution postulates transitional forms.
Sure it does, and that assumption has been shown false. The theory of evolution has been, arguably, falsified by fossil evidence. Instead of the theory being falsified they claim the data to be insufficient. And around we go.
>> Sure, we can't directly observe it, but we can make very plausible inferences on the basis of existing evidence.
Then it is not science. Karl Popper said that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."
>>The anatomical evidence alone speaks for itself. Even other creationists, when pressed, have acknowledged that domestic cats, tigers, lions, leopards, fishing cats, etc. constitute one feline 'kind'.
Not at all. It only constitutes one, (read common) Creator.
I will get into this more later I am trying to work in a new post.
Did someone ask for transitional fossils?
ReplyDeleteDid someone ask for transitional fossils?
ReplyDeleteSorry if this is a multiple post but my comments aren't appearing below.
ReplyDeleteDan said that the assumption that there are transitional forms has been shown false...
Eh, no.
Did someone ask for transitional fossils?
Attempt number 4. Sorry if this is a multiple post but my comments aren't appearing below.
ReplyDeleteDan said that the assumption that there are transitional forms has been shown false...
Eh, no.
Did someone ask for transitional fossils?
Dan +†+ said (to Dormantdragon) ...
ReplyDeleteThen it is not science. Karl Popper said that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."
Popper was, of course, referring to his belief that the ToE wasn't falsifiable and not that it wasn't observable, indeed he said of the ToE:
"And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work."
He also later somewhat recanted his view on the ToE's falsifiability by admitting it was indeed testable (and by extension falsifiable):
"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."
This is not to mention that scientists themselves considered Popper to be wrong and that the ToE was indeed falsifiable and offered up predictions which, if contradicted by the evidence, would have falsified the theory.
One of the devices of satan is to get God's people to disbelieve what God inspired his prophets to write. For centuries, skeptics, heathens, heretics and wolves in sheep's clothing have tried to get people to disbelieve what God inspired. If satan and his children can get Christians to deny the Genesis account, then that gives them the capacity to deny everything that is written in the bible itself. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, and I am neither ashamed of the creation story in Genesis, for it is the gift of God unto salvation. Satan tricked Eve in the garden of Eden, by telling her that she would not die, although God said "you shall surely die."
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Christians deny other things such as Jesus being God, they also deny the rapture, they also deny Armageddon. How much more will self-professing Christians will deny? People should know by now that if the heart of mankind is wicked, then that man will write anything and try to convince others that it's true, i.e, macro-evolution, the Big Bang, Chemical/Cosmic evolution, etc. The reason scientists reject creationism is that they reject God. That's why public education is indoctrination.
Just as Jesus said, "If a man loves me he will keep my commandments." Yet, Christians will tell you that you don't have to keep God's commandments. So who do we obey, God or man?
It's certainly hilarious that that is all you have now.
ReplyDelete