Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

[Undeceived]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-d...76345.html

I've learned not to trust any article that manipulates the facts for persuasive purposes.

It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth,

Some birds have teeth. Some birds have scales on their legs. Both fill vital roles now--unrelated to history.

whales to make legs,

Baleen whales have a hox gene that, when switched, can affect expression. But there have to be other genes to produce the legs once turned on by the hox gene. These genes do not exist.

and humans to make tails.

Human embryos have tails in certain stages of development to aid assembly of the vertebrae. Later in life, people have tailbones to support their spinal cord. Both are in full use today.
The question evolutionists should be asking is this: If evolution is happening today, why do DNA codes contain no new dormant genes from which to build future organs?

It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.

Most evolutionists believe humans arose from one biological ancestor.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ev...cestor.htm

If science is on his side, why not just be honest?

[Consilius]

I, personally, am not a Creationist. Evolution is nothing for Christians to be afraid of.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're a bright light in a sea of shitwits Consilius.

[Godscreated]

Honestly, I've never given it a lot of thought.

But, I do believe that a "Dualism", is possible. At least in a sense that evolution of life in general progressed to a certain level. Whereas creationism was separate in terms of a "spiritual" evolution in man. There was some writing on this that I read years ago. I don't remember. I'll have to consult my secretary/memory-bank (ie wife) and get back to ya. lol

But, I don't really like separating the two (evolution & creationism). God created/allowed both! I think that is where religious got off track along the way. There is no reason to divide them imo.

Sounds like Fr0d0 has the most expertise with this but I believe the idea is that we needn't use the bible to qualify what we find through science. If you believe in a creator then the creation itself, what we study best with science, stands on its own merits as revelation of what has been created. I see no reason to think that anything the bible says must be read in a way which would allow the study of creation through science to pose any difficulty. Easy for me to say, of course, as I am not trying to hold on to a faith in God while pushing the limits of the bible as allegory.

The Bible is not a science book, was never meant to be and it will never be one. The Bible is an account of God and what He has done in His infinite wisdom and power and how man fits in His divine plan. The Bible is not about man, but the relationship God wants with man, in short the Bible is about God and why we are to fit into His plan or reject His plan and be separated from Him for eternity.
With this said, as I see scripture we are to believe what is there, God described a creation that no other can claim, even Satan has not tried to claim any part of creation. His claim to fame is in manipulating the creation by introducing doubt, that's all he did with Eve and Adam bought in.
If Christianity buys into evolution then we have bought into the doubt that Satan planted in the Garden and that is this "did God." Yes, that one little statement by Satan is all it has taken to bring doubt into the creation, bring doubt that God could have created the universe just as scripture states. I have no doubt about God's creation, I do have tons of questions, but they'll have to wait till I enter eternity. The only real question I have now is how useful can I be for God in His divine plan. If Christianity accepts evolution then God will be discounted, it's been claimed here many, many times and why not, then people do not need to find themselves responsible for their actions to a superior being, only themselves. With "did God," Satan made it possible for evolution to be considered and accepted by those who do not want to believe they are morally responsible to anyone other than themselves, which is completely against what the scriptures teach and Christ represents. If the creation account in Genesis is just a story made up to explain the world, then why is it called the creation story, why would early man have even thought that the world was ever created, why not assume it has always been, they never saw anything created so why the need to explain something they never knew, why. Why was the story retold in the book of John 1500 years later if Christ was not the creator.
One more thing about the creation account as it is written, why write it that way, scientifically it doesn't make sense, but with an omnipotent God who says that our reasoning is not like His in control of the process no one could reason it out as He did it. The creation story holds to the truth of the rest of scripture, so it's not "did God," it's God did.

[Drich]

So to recap:
God created Man and woman and placed them in the garden. They could have been there a day before eating the forbidden fruit or they could have been there the 900 million bazillion years the scientist believe it took to evolve. Why? because there is no recorded time time between: "In the beginning" and the fall of man. Only speculation because we can count the generations back 6000 or so years.

When in fact all we can really say is that man has been out of the Garden 6000 or so years. We know the Garden was a sanctuary, and that God kept Man created in His image there for an undisclosed amount of time. This does not means the rest of the world did not have to evolve as the undeniable fossil record proves.

Actually it does.

When it identifies him as the Son of Marry and when he awards himself the title "the Son of Man." One can not be both Human and raptor at the same time.

---

There seems to be a great intrest here so allow me to repost what has already been done to death:

Quote:

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul.

Okay, sorry. I do sort of remember this but I do still think you are being way too literal in trying to fit a narrative to the particulars of the story.

...and if it is a literal account? (Literal meaning someone doing there best to describe event for event what they saw.)

[fr0d0]

The creation story holds to the truth of the rest of scripture, so it's not "did God," it's God did.

I agree.

What I'm saying is that what you're saying is literal is not supportable. No one has offered an exegetical study in support. Walton offers a very thorough and convincing study to support a view which doesn't contradict science. That wasn't his purpose. His purpose was to drill down into the exact meaning of the text to most honestly reveal what it says.

I believe we always need room for dissenters and opposing ideas. That's healthy.

[Whateverist]

Okay, sorry. I do sort of remember this but I do still think you are being way too literal in trying to fit a narrative to the particulars of the story.

...and if it is a literal account? (Literal meaning someone doing there best to describe event for event what they saw.)

Well, so long as you think it is a literal account then you will miss the allegorical message. If in fact, every word in the bible was written by a person possessed by God himself who wrote with literal intent, it is surprising just how little specificity there is in the writing. It seems much more likely that a being capable of what you believe your God to be would find communication limited by the ability of his intended audience. Poetic allusion seems a likely recourse. If so, and you insist on reading it simply, you will miss the boat.

"...and if it is a literal account?" Then I fry in hell yada yada yada.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems much more likely that a being capable of what you believe your God to be would find communication limited by the ability of his intended audience. Poetic allusion seems a likely recourse.

Likely? You figure it's likely for their god, with their grab bag of abilities and powers...to find some barrier to communication - whatsoever? I'm still imagining a bigger god, personally. After all.....my children have already learned to communicate with human beings - one might imagine a god to express aptitude beyond that of my children........

[Whateverist]

The Bible is not a science book, was never meant to be and it will never be one.

The Bible is an account of God and what He has done in His infinite wisdom and power and how man fits in His divine plan. The Bible is not about man, but the relationship God wants with man, in short the Bible is about God and why we are to fit into His plan or reject His plan and be separated from Him for eternity.

If Christianity buys into evolution then we have bought into the doubt that Satan planted in the Garden and that is this "did God." Yes, that one little statement by Satan is all it has taken to bring doubt into the creation, bring doubt that God could have created the universe just as scripture states. I have no doubt about God's creation, I do have tons of questions, but they'll have to wait till I enter eternity.

---

It seems much more likely that a being capable of what you believe your God to be would find communication limited by the ability of his intended audience. Poetic allusion seems a likely recourse.

Likely? You figure it's likely for their god, with their grab bag of abilities and powers...to find some barrier to communication - whatsoever? I'm still imagining a bigger god, personally. After all.....my children have already learned to communicate with human beings - one might imagine a god to express aptitude beyond that of my children........

No as I said there too I would expect an all-omni god to able to speak with great precision and specificity about all manner of things - something that doesn't happen in the bible. However if this being were trying to convey something subtle about what is meaningful and why or just something which is difficult for our non-omni minds to comprehend, then poetry may be the way to go.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is an example of mature Christian thought I'm always extolling but only rarely encountering anywhere. So Frodo, I think, is already on board. Chad I guess might be too.

Sorry about being late to the party and skimming to the end of the thread...we're buying a new house and that's been the priority. Reality trumps philosophy in more ways than one.

Evolution itself presents little difficulty to me since my focus has always been on the allegorical and symbolic content of God's Word. Creation "science" is certainly not an essential teaching of the Christian faith. Nevertheless I believe Christian faith does entail at least two concepts :

1. God is the Creator. Whatever was created has come into existence through God's action regardless of the means by which He created.

2. The products of evolution come from Providence and not purely by chance, i.e. there must be teleological or final goals in evolution.

While the scientific method intentionally excludes teleology, that has no real bearing on whether final ends are actually present or not.

Belief in teleology is not entirely unjustified. Similar geographically isolated environmental niches have produced remarkably similar morphology in species of different ancestry. While chance could account for this result (1000 heads in a row is theoretically possible) it seems reasonable that final ends may be intrinsic to evolution. As I recall hard science fiction writer Greg Bear extrapolated his ideas for "Darwin's Radio" from research into that possibility.