Evolution vs God


#1

Evolution Vs. God


#2

first off, I found it difficult to discover if this is an evolution or a faith promotion piece, which side it was on, but I think I figured it out by the producers involved.

I find it troubling and counterproductive to make claims that God and evolution are mutually exclusive and against each other in concept. There is no “vs” in my mind. The evolutionist should not feel threatened by faith and those of faith should not feel threatened by, or that their faith is questioned by, evolution. Perhaps evolution is a good rundown of all the evidence and information we have for it, perhaps it is pretty poorly analyzed and crammed together like a kindergarten craft project, but either way, without being a scientist -specifically a biologist or evolutionist- I am not going to make any claims against or challenge evolution. Let the atheists futilely pit them against each other and don’t give them the pleasure of such a ridiculous debate. The atheist -especially if a scientist- would have too many good points in favor of evolution, and the theist would have too many good points in favor of God, and both to no avail except a backsliding of each away from understanding the other’s topic and more hardened against it -but hey, if anti-progress is your thing, fine, whatever.

I happen to like evolution, and even though my religious beliefs make me think there must be more to it, or that some of the theory is compiled wrong with too many assumptions, again, I am not a scientist, so I do not challenge it -but since I am constantly intrigued by science, it is in my interest to understand it the way they are crunching it. None of it challenges my religious beliefs in reality, so when atheists seek to use it to challenge my beliefs, it is all the more fun to get to the base of the real problem with their challenge rather than trying to argue against evolution or for faith in a scientific sense that they’ll never accept anyway -even if I came up with the best answer a human could in favor of it.


#3

Evolution has some good points, but there are a few major gaps. That’s not enough, to me anyway, to “prove” it wrong . . . just as long as you don’t go calling it a Law of the Universe. “Theory” is fine.

CT would know better than I, but I think the Vatican has declared the Theory of Evolution as compatible with the Bible. I have no idea what the Protestant position on that is. I assume it’s specific to the sects. I’m guessing that some fundamentalist sects, like Baptists maybe, have a hard time with it, since my understanding is that they take the Bible literally . . . 6 days, Jonah, and such. My understanding is that they’re not real big on things like parables.


#4

Who Knows, maybe it could even by a combination of evolution and intelligent design combined together.
As a former theistic evolutionist for 42 years I know we have quite a few flavors out there. One is that God Front loaded life with us being the end result and a few protrusions by God along the way, But as ive shown in a few videos, evolution by itself is insufficient to explain the information in DNA, but I see micro evolution happening all the time through adaptation of species.

Whats even more important is the odds of life coming about by blind chance and chemical interactions which is a number so big that the number of atoms in the universe pales in comparision to the odds of life coming about this way.

This is why evolution shouldnt scare Christians, It never scared me, but evolution isnt the same as neodarwinian evolution.


#5

Correct BobJam, but not neodarwinian evolution. The vatican teaches that as Catholics we should believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve.
And also in the book of Genesis the hebrew word for day is YOM, which can mean literal day or time period.
All Christians should also remember that some parts of the bible were written allegorically.

But there are some very interesting things to uncover in the old testament. Take the book of Job for instance, where Job was starting to get an attitude with God and God started to put him in his place. God asked Job if he could loosen Orions Belt, and he said that he could and he will. Even the ancient greeks didnt know this info and couldnt have possibly known it. Astronomers today have revealed that Orions belt has started to loosen and will keep loosening until it will no longer be orions belt.
The book of Job was written hundreds of years before the greek enlightenment period :slight_smile:
Things that make you go hmmmmm


#6

The evolutionist should not feel threatened by faith and those of faith should not feel threatened by, or that their faith is questioned by, evolution.

This.


#7

My pastor takes the attitude that whether or not you believe in evolution is irrelevant. The important thing is God’s plan of salvation. If you don’t insist on pushing any belief that either 1) is inconsistent with the certainty of the scriptures 2) does not undermine God’s plan of salvation, it’s not a big deal. The plan of salvation is really the whole reason the Bible was written.


#8

The point I am trying to make, more or less, is - I don’t believe in evolution myself, but I don’t think that you are automatically headed for hell because you do believe it! If it was all that important, God would have made it more plain to us. And, as I’ve said before, I believe that all of us are going to get some surprises re our beliefs when we get there!

I used to believe that everyone who didn’t believe exactly as I (my local church, specifically) did, was headed for hell.


#9

I saw a very similar thread to this one on another forum.


#10

[quote=“Susanna, post:8, topic:40512”]
I used to believe that everyone who didn’t believe exactly as I (my local church, specifically) did, was headed for hell.
[/quote]I think there may still be a few individuals like that out there. Interestingly, atheists STILL use this to characterize the entire world of Christianity.


#11

I wonder who posted that one.


#12

The early apostolic fathers and the early church fathers were mostly inclusivists as my research helped me to see. You are correct Bobjam in that atheists still use this arguments today, and that is because they havent looked any deeper into Christianity then a few cherry picked verses from the bible. God looks first at the disposition of our hearts and whether we are following the light that he has given us with all of our hearts.


#13

The Catholic Church is very clear on the reality of Adam and Eve:

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humanus Generis 1950 states the following:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

There are other Church documents which proclaim that anyone who says that Adam and Eve were not real human beings which existed on earth… ***“let them be anathema”***. I don’t have the citation for that, but I can find it–it will take some time, though.

Then we also have the Scriptures:

“But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” –Galatians 1:8

I don’t think the Church could be more clear on this.

And, there was a recent scientific study done to determine, by DNA, whether or not there was a real Adam. There is indisputable scientific evidence which proves that mankind came from one human being–the guy we call “Adam”.


#14

I was given this article link from a friend. This is a devestating critique of evolution from a non creationist who is also an atheist.

Skeptic of Darwinism –

he starts with how did life first form.

For a while, life was thought to have come about on clay in shallow water in seas of a particular composition, later in tidal pools with another chemical solution, then in the open ocean in another solution. This continues. Recently, geothermal vents have been offered as the home of the first life. Today (Feb 24, 2005) on the BBC website, I learn that life evolved below the oceanic floor. (“There is evidence that life evolved in the deep sediments," co-author John Parkes, of Cardiff University, UK, told the BBC News website. Link at bottom.)

The frequent shifting of ground bothered me. If we knew how life began, why did we have so many prospective mechanisms, none of which really worked? Evolution began to look like a theory in search of a soup. Forty-five years later, it still does.

Questions Arise

I was probably in college when I found myself asking what seemed to me straightforward questions about the chemical origin of life. In particular:

(1) Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas. Did we, I wondered, really know of what those early seas consisted? Know, not suspect, hope, theorize, divine, speculate, or really, really wish.

The answer was, and is, “no.” We have no dried residue, no remaining pools, and the science of planetogenesis isn’t nearly good enough to provide a quantitative analysis.

(2) Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn’t, and hasn’t. (Note 1)

(3) Did we know what conditions were necessary for a cell to come about? No, we didn’t, and don’t.

(4) Could it be shown to be mathematically probable that a cell would form, given any soup whatever? No, it couldn’t, and can’t. (At least not without cooking the assumptions.) (Note 2)

Well, I thought, sophomore chemistry major that I then was: If we don’t know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can’t reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can’t show it to be statistically probable — why are we so very sure that it happened? Would you hang a man on such evidence?

Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. (And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way.) Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.

As an example, it seems plausible to evolutionists that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean (I think) that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.

Consequently, discussion often turns to vague and murky assertion. Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can’t see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn’t have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But…is any of this established?

I wish I could put the whole article here, but I think its against forum rules.
Anyways this article points out how most things that are considered to be fact by pro-evolutionists arent established facts at all but things that are almost impossible to happen, yet if there is a one in a zillion chance for it to happen that favored blind evolution, then it happened lol.
I call this the evolution of the gaps.


#15

RE Adam and Eve: We can also trace humanity back to Noah & sons, as the only survivors of the flood. And the Bible gives the precise genealogy from Adam to Noah. Although Adam means “man” and is sometimes translated “the man,” there was still only one of him (it’s never translated “the men”). Eve means “living”, because she was the “mother of all living.”


#16

[quote=“wallstreeter43, post:14, topic:40512”]
I call this the evolution of the gaps.
[/quote]The problem, I think, is when teachers assert it as a Law of the Universe, which I think most do.

And the other problem, and one I think is much more widespread, is when they assert that the Theory is better than any other (which I think the author of your article pointed out.)


#17

Exactly BobJam , and for 42 years I just assumed everything about the theory of evolution was true without questioning it, until I actually started to honestly take a look at all of what they stated about it as fact, and that’s when it started to crumble.
Yes and the author of the article himself isn’t a creationist , but as soon as he questioned anything about evolution he was ridiculed and called a creationist.

For me evolution can’t explain the most important aspect of life, the information within DNA.


#18

It also seems to me that the definition of the word “theory” has become hotly disputed by many in the evolution crowd. It seems to have a completely different meaning than what I have been taught, according to some on the evolution side. I learned that here on RO early in my membership. (Some of you may remember that exchange between me, Cam and another poster–I don’t remember who that was now.) It’s sort of reminded me of how words are twisted to mean different things in the abortion argument. (“Person”, “personhood”, “human”, etc.) I don’t understand this trend except that it seems to be an attempt to change the meanings of words in order to strengthen one’s political/scientific/ethical position on certain topics. I think almost everyone would agree that the term “theory” would apply to the age of the Earth, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and that race is an indicator of intelligence. However, when it comes to certain hot topics such as evolution, when human life begins, and global l warming, suddenly “theory” takes on a different meaning. And most any discussion of these topics will result in a “no-win” situation.


"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” *** ~Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany


#19

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:18, topic:40512”]
It also seems to me that the definition of the word “theory” has become hotly disputed by many in the evolution crowd. It seems to have a completely different meaning than what I have been taught, according to some on the evolution side. I learned that here on RO early in my membership. (Some of you may remember that exchange between me, Cam and another poster–I don’t remember who that was now.) It’s sort of reminded me of how words are twisted to mean different things in the abortion argument. (“Person”, “personhood”, “human”, etc.) I don’t understand this trend except that it seems to be an attempt to change the meanings of words in order to strengthen one’s political/scientific/ethical position on certain topics. I think almost everyone would agree that the term “theory” would apply to the age of the Earth, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and that race is an indicator of intelligence. However, when it comes to certain hot topics such as evolution, when human life begins, and global l warming, suddenly “theory” takes on a different meaning. And most any discussion of these topics will result in a “no-win” situation.


"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” *** ~Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
[/quote]Yes, it is called “moving the mark” or “moving the goal post”. The word can conveniently mean what they need it to in each situation.

The numbers game can be quite devious as well. Torture numbers enough and they’ll confess to anything.

I think the “theory” of theory of evolution needs a new definition, or a new word for it. It is really a set of theories. A theory that this set of theories fit together and back each other up. The biggest problems are when they assume that one part affirms the whole or that one part affirms another part, which affirms another part, on and on and on. It’s a sand castle on a foundation of sand -yeah there may be a few rocks, but they can be looked at with any angle and changed out and switched around, and they certainly don’t strengthen the whole.


#20

I remember hearing something about - let me see if I can explain it the way I understood it - that a certain thing existed in a certain age, because it was found in a stratum from that age - then, that particular stratum was proven to be in that certain age, because that certain thing existed in it.

Did I make myself clear, or is my explanation of it even more muddled than the original presentation of it?