thightower
Member
How can a true bible believeing Christian even entertain the idea of evolution? I have run on to a few of these people and I just don't get it.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter thightower
- Start date
Grazer
Member
By accepting that Genesis is not meant as a scientific treatise or historical account as to how the universe was created, it goes far deeper than that. Even if you take Genesis as such, it does not conflict with evolution per se. Evolution can simply mean change over time. I wrote a post outlining various definitions of evolution (http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44862)
Not taking Genesis literalistically is not a sign of not being a bible believing Christian. Indeed some scholars see taking a literalistic interpretation is to not take scripture seriously.
thightower
Member
The only part of evolution that holds water if you want to call it that is macroevolution. Which is the changing of colors or size, but the animal didn't change kinds. So a dog is still a dog and a horse is still a horse.
What I can't understand is when someone reads Genisis 1;1.
1 In the beginning God created...
How can a christian still entertain evolution.
What I can't understand is when someone reads Genisis 1;1.
1 In the beginning God created...
How can a christian still entertain evolution.
Grazer
Member
I think you mean microevolution. Microevolution is changes within spieces, macroevolution is change from one spieces to another. The former has been scientifically observed and is beyond doubt. The latter is largely accepted but there is some disagreement.
You seem to be under the impression that you have to choose between evolution and God. This is a false choice. Evolution is a mechanism, God is an agent/designer. To say you have to choose is like saying you have to choose between internal combustion or Henry Ford as an explanation for the Ford car. They are different but non competing kinds of explanation, one does not rule out the other.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
stovebolts
Member
Grazer,
With all due respect, you take the approach that you have to either choose between Science and Creation. That's simply not the case. Science can, and in many places does affirm Creation.
With all due respect, you take the approach that you have to either choose between Science and Creation. That's simply not the case. Science can, and in many places does affirm Creation.
thightower
Member
Grazer
Member
No I don't take that approach, I take the exact opposite. I thought my ford car analogy made that clear
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Grazer
Member
Atonement
Member
There are a lot of questions I have about this. And over the years I have heard probably all the arguments and I see that I could take bits and pieces from each one actually..
Theories of old earth and evolution
Gap Theory - Also known as the Ruin-Reconstruction theory, this proposes that there was a ‘gap’ of time, of billions of years, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
Progressive Creationism - Each creation day is equal to millions of years, and represents a specific portion of God's creative work.
Theistic Evolution - God used evolution to develop life on earth. Each creation day is equal to millions of years
I have questions about mankind and the length of time between his creation and that from vegetation?? When God created man, He put man in the garden Genesis 2:15. That garden was fully grown already because it had trees (thus tree of life) and man was to take care of it. But notice God did not say let there be trees, let there be grass etc.. God said let the earth produce it's own vegetation Genesis 1:11.. I don't know what fruit tree can produce it's on fruit in 24hrs. Trees can take several years of growth to start producing their own fruit.
Now -
Notice the Heavens - The closet star to earth is Proxima Centauri and it's 4.243 light years away and the furthest object that can be seen with the naked eye that looks like a star is the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million light years away. Why are we able to see it if the earth is young?
I'm uncertain how to answer any of these, because as I stated I could take bits and pieces from every theory. All I can do is trust that God created it because His Word says it and God did it in His timing and His timing is perfect and never without delay
LJ
Theories of old earth and evolution
Gap Theory - Also known as the Ruin-Reconstruction theory, this proposes that there was a ‘gap’ of time, of billions of years, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
Progressive Creationism - Each creation day is equal to millions of years, and represents a specific portion of God's creative work.
Theistic Evolution - God used evolution to develop life on earth. Each creation day is equal to millions of years
I have questions about mankind and the length of time between his creation and that from vegetation?? When God created man, He put man in the garden Genesis 2:15. That garden was fully grown already because it had trees (thus tree of life) and man was to take care of it. But notice God did not say let there be trees, let there be grass etc.. God said let the earth produce it's own vegetation Genesis 1:11.. I don't know what fruit tree can produce it's on fruit in 24hrs. Trees can take several years of growth to start producing their own fruit.
Now -
Notice the Heavens - The closet star to earth is Proxima Centauri and it's 4.243 light years away and the furthest object that can be seen with the naked eye that looks like a star is the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million light years away. Why are we able to see it if the earth is young?
I'm uncertain how to answer any of these, because as I stated I could take bits and pieces from every theory. All I can do is trust that God created it because His Word says it and God did it in His timing and His timing is perfect and never without delay
LJ
stovebolts
Member
Creation takes a more literal interpretation of the text, thus the earth would be under 6,000 years old and when God created Adam, he created Adam. Adam didn't evolve from a slug.
Evolution states that the earth is 4.6 billions of years old and essentially humanity evolved from single cells.
Science can be used to support Creation, and it can be used to support Evolution. But for it to support Evolution, one has to accept the assumptions of Science.
Perhaps it is better put that creationism takes a more literalistic interpretation. Creation, as in the act of creating, should not be put over against evolution as the process of evolution could very well be the means God used to create all living things.
Just to try and keep clearer the different positions on the matter.
Grazer
Member
Agreed though I would possibly go further and say young earth creationism takes a more literalistic interpretation.
Both YEC and evolution makes assumptions. YEC assumes a literalistic interpretation of the bible, evolution assumes the earth is old though there is supporting evidence from geology and cosmology
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
stovebolts
Member
I agree that your verbiage is a tad more elegant, but I don't see any difference in what I stated above: Creation takes a more literal interpretation of the text
Keeping to a literalistic reading of the text, God said... and it was. Evolution states otherwise. As a result, the two ideologies are not compatible.
That being said, science should not be pitted against Creationism or Evolution since science can support a young earth and it can be used to support evolution depending on the assumptions one wants to read into the scientific facts.
Well, in this context "creation" is just a word that doesn't tell us anything other than everything that began to exist was created. It doesn't say anything about the method used in the act of creating. "Creationism" on the other hand is typically used of YECism, and that is a belief system which makes certain assumptions about the biblical text, including the very act of creating.
When we get to the use of "literal," that is commonly understood to be "the meaning or understanding that the author intended." "Literalistic" is understood as "what the words state is what the author intended." For example, when Jesus says he is the door, a literalistic understanding says that he is literally a talking wooden door, while a literal understanding says that Jesus meant he is the way, the means by which we have salvation made available.
So you can see that a literalistic interpretation is not always going to be correct. We need to try and understand what the authors of Scripture intended to say.
And while I agree that that is consistent with a literalistic interpretation, the literal interpretation says that there are volumes of information not given between God speaking and things being created. The actual method used to create is not given in Scripture. Evolution is a process which God could have used to create and is therefore not necessarily against Scripture and the act of creating.
The common error is when Evolution is always put up against Creation, when it actually is Scientific Naturalism versus Creation. Evolution is just a process, that is what science tells us. But it is then interpreted through a worldview such as Scientific Naturalism, which by definition, seeks to keep God out of the picture.
Agreed.
stovebolts
Member
Ahh, you see, I was simply using dictionary.com to define literal and literalistic.
What we're actually talking about it esoteric nomenclature within the Creationist / Evolutionist debate. Got it...hmm... thanks for sharing. It gives me insight to your reasoning. From a literalistic perspective, scripture tells us that God's Word is Jesus as affirmed in John's writings and within Colossians. So if anything, we as Christians should be able to understand that the jist of Scripture is to understand that God created the world through is son Jesus and we ought never loose sight if that since it's so primary in the scriptures. How did God create according to scriptures? He spoke it into existance by his word. And what was his word? It was Jesus. If we take it up a notch, we also find that God's name is found within God's word, but that's not for this discussion.
How did Jesus heal the sick? Most often he spoke and they were healed. Sometimes their faith in Him healed them... but it was all through His authority which they were healed. So, when Jesus says that somebody was healed, do we immediatly look for the scientific explanation, or do we just accept that what Jesus said was true. I know of one centurion who believed the words of Jesus and his son was healed simply by jesus saying "Be healed".
How to you attribute that to science?
My view of Evolution is to discredit the Bible... at least that's been my experience.
Not quite. It is my understanding that these are definitions used by biblical scholars and theologians for understanding all things biblical, as part of the normal process of biblical interpretation. Nothing at all esoteric nor relating only to the creation/evolution debate.Ahh, you see, I was simply using dictionary.com to define literal and literalistic.
It's all the same--God speaks and something happens. But what happens immediately after that happens, happens according to the laws of physics and nature. When someone was/is healed, there is a moment in time when God intervenes, he says something or does something, and then the body does what it is supposed to do. A process occurs. This process can either happen rapidly or it can happen slowly.
That is how many portray it and which side started it, I don't know. But perhaps such an idea needs to be discarded. It's like any idea in nearly any discipline--either understood or misunderstood, it can be used to mislead.
Grazer
Member
Evolution has been used to discredit the Bible and as Free has rightly pointed out, that perception needs to be challenged. From my perspective it seems many Christians have bought into Dawkins mantra.
All this reminds me of Galileo. Now he wasn't the first one to put forward a model of the universe with the sun at its center but he's probably the most famous. The church of the time had latched itself on to the Aristotlian model of an earth centered universe and decided they would preside over scientific matters. Galileo was also up against the Aristotle scholars of the day as well.
My point though is that the model Galileo and Copernicus put forward was seen to be discrediting scripture. One of the cardinals of the time, cardinal bellarmine said;
"The doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun.....is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held"
This is a position many are taking about evolution. History though, showed Galileo to be right and the church had no problems reinterpreting passages in light of scientific discoveries. The irony being though that Galileo and Copernicus were both believers in God and today there are many Christian scientists today who hold to the evolution theory, the most prominent probably being Francis Collins; former director of the human genome project and current director of the national institute of health.
There is so much misunderstanding about evolution, about descriptions of law that its leading people to conclude they have to make false choices between evolution or God, evolution or the Bible or even science and God. Professor John Lennox has given many excellent lectures on exactly why these are false choices. But I see the same mistakes the church made with Galileo being made today and that does worry me.
For me personally, it doesn't matter how we were created, the fact we were created by God and I have a relationship with him is what matters. I don't see evolution or the theory of evolution as a threat to God, a mechanism can never threaten a creator as an explanation.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
All this reminds me of Galileo. Now he wasn't the first one to put forward a model of the universe with the sun at its center but he's probably the most famous. The church of the time had latched itself on to the Aristotlian model of an earth centered universe and decided they would preside over scientific matters. Galileo was also up against the Aristotle scholars of the day as well.
My point though is that the model Galileo and Copernicus put forward was seen to be discrediting scripture. One of the cardinals of the time, cardinal bellarmine said;
"The doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun.....is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held"
This is a position many are taking about evolution. History though, showed Galileo to be right and the church had no problems reinterpreting passages in light of scientific discoveries. The irony being though that Galileo and Copernicus were both believers in God and today there are many Christian scientists today who hold to the evolution theory, the most prominent probably being Francis Collins; former director of the human genome project and current director of the national institute of health.
There is so much misunderstanding about evolution, about descriptions of law that its leading people to conclude they have to make false choices between evolution or God, evolution or the Bible or even science and God. Professor John Lennox has given many excellent lectures on exactly why these are false choices. But I see the same mistakes the church made with Galileo being made today and that does worry me.
For me personally, it doesn't matter how we were created, the fact we were created by God and I have a relationship with him is what matters. I don't see evolution or the theory of evolution as a threat to God, a mechanism can never threaten a creator as an explanation.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Evolution part of the state's religion. The public schools indoctrinate the population with it. Hollywood loves it. Anyone who doesn't believe it is ridiculed and considered a heretic. That's a lot of pressure for Christians to accept it.
Grazer
Member
So anyone who accepts the theory of evolution is doing so purely because of pressure?
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
thightower
Member
My point is we are not to take part in the world's belief. The bible says in Romans 12:2, be not conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of your mind. I guess it is who is the individuals ultimate authority, God's word or the world's point of view.