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!

  • Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Looking to grow in the word of God more?

    See our Bible Studies and Devotionals sections in Christian Growth

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

[_ Old Earth _] Finding common ground between God and evolution???

Justice

Member
Finding common ground between God and evolution: January 25, 2005

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... rop25.html

Ken Miller is an interesting guy. He is co-author of the nation's best-selling biology textbook. It was on his book, "Biology," that schools in Cobb County, Ga., slapped a sticker casting doubt on its discussion of evolution theory. And it was this sticker that a federal judge recently ordered removed because it endorsed religion. Miller, who testified against the label, gets a lot of hate mail these days.

But Miller is also a practicing Roman Catholic. "I attend Mass every Sunday morning," he said, "and I'm tired of being called an atheist."

A professor of biology at Brown University, Miller does not believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution contradicts the creation passages in the Bible. And he will argue the point till dawn.

"None of the six creative verses (in Genesis) describe an out-of-nothing, puff-of-smoke creation," he says. "All of them amount to a command by the creator for the earth, the soil and the water of this planet to bring forth life. And that's exactly what natural history tells us happened." (Miller has written a book on the subject: "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.")

Still, today's emotional conflicts over teaching this science in public schools leave the impression that Christianity and evolution cannot be reconciled. This is not so.

In 1996, Pope John II wrote a strong letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences supporting the scientific understanding of evolution. That's one reason why students in Catholic parochial schools get a more clearheaded education in evolution science than do children at many public schools racked by the evolution debate.

American parents who want Darwin's name erased from the textbooks might be surprised at the father of evolution's burial spot. Darwin was laid to rest in Westminster Abbey, an Anglican church and England's national shrine.

Not every illustrious Englishman gains admission to an abbey burial site. Darwin died in 1882. Two years before, friends of George Eliot wanted the famous (female) writer laid to rest at the abbey. Eliot had lived immorally, according to the church fathers, and was denied a place. (She is buried at London's Highgate Cemetery, not far from Karl Marx.)

But Darwin had been an upright man. The clergy were proud both of Darwin's accomplishments and of their own comfort with modern science.

In 1882, during the memorial service for the great evolutionist, one church leader after the other rose to praise Charles Darwin. Canon Alfred Barry, for one, had recently delivered a sermon declaring that Darwin's theory was "by no means alien to the Christian religion."

Nowadays, Catholics and old-line Protestants have largely made peace with evolution theory. Most objections come from evangelicals  and not all of them.

Francis S. Collins is head of the National Genome Project and a born-again Christian. He belongs to the American Scientific Affiliation  a self-described fellowship of scientists "who share a common fidelity to the word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science." Its Web address is http://www.asa3.org.

But back in Cobb County, the debate rages. The sticker taken off Miller's textbook read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Why should Miller care that the Cobb County School Board  having bought his book in great quantity  pastes those words on the cover?

First off, he says, "It implies that facts are things we are certain of and theories are things that are shaky." In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts, he notes. "Theories don't grow up to become facts. Rather, theories explain facts."

Then, he questions why, of all the material in his book, only evolution is singled out for special consideration. Miller says that if he could write the sticker, it would say, "Everything in this book should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Clearly, many religious people regard evolution theory with sincere and heartfelt concern. But theirs is not a mainstream view  even among practicing Christians. Most theologians these days will argue that the biology book and the Good Book are reading from the same page.
 
There are clergy men who will argue that homosexuality is not against what is written in the Bible. In fact certain churches will adovate for homosexuals to be priests in the church.

Since these people are also sincere and claim to be following God's Word, does it lend them the same credibility as the evolutionists who attends mass? How about the men that want the legalization of sex between men and 14 year old boys and claim to be Christians as well? Shall they not be called into question as well?

Just like the same sex marriage dispute, when will the true Church stand and stop the continuing spread of liberal thinking inside the church that creates a compromise between the God's Word and Man's theories.

Evolution may not seem to be such a big deal, but trying exanding the area of conversation to the divinty of Christ, His conception, His ressurection, the flood, the parting of the sea, a literal Moses, a literal Abraham, a literal Adam, and see what you learn.

I have notice in my talks with theistic evolutionists that many question the divinity of Christ, claiming He was born not of the Holy Spirit, He did not raise from the dead, and that the Old Testament is just a myth and nothing in it really happened. I have seen the statement made that Jesus was not God, by theistic evolutionists.

As the theory itself may not be a big deal, it is a beginning of allowing the liberal theology of the world to creep into God's Word. Some may leave it at this theory and never question anything else in the Bible. It has been my experience that the majority of theistic evolutionists don't leave it at that and do question many teachings of the Bible, especially those found in the New Testament.
 
common ground

I don't think Christians can come to a common ground on the subject of evolution and accept the bible as written. Can Christians accept the moral philosophy of Jesus (doesn't matter if he existed) and go on? Sure. Does it put the fantastic claims and promises made in the bible in jeapordy? Absolutely.
 
GodSaves said:
There are clergy men who will argue that homosexuality is not against what is written in the Bible. In fact certain churches will adovate for homosexuals to be priests in the church.

There is a church here that was Episcopalian at one time. They left the Episcopalian church because of a issue where a Bishop was appointed that supported homosexuality in some way.

So, I am wondering, can you give me a example of a church that left their demonination, because a Bishop believes in the theory of evolution?
 
GodSaves said:
There are clergy men who will argue that homosexuality is not against what is written in the Bible. In fact certain churches will adovate for homosexuals to be priests in the church.

Due to the ambiguity of passages in the bible, that's not surprising.

Since these people are also sincere and claim to be following God's Word, does it lend them the same credibility as the evolutionists who attends mass? How about the men that want the legalization of sex between men and 14 year old boys and claim to be Christians as well? Shall they not be called into question as well?

I can't believe you are equating homosexuality and evolutionary theory with pedophelia. Honestly, why don't we throw in some genital mutliation and baby eating?

Of course, you claim you are sincere, and claim to be following God's Word, what sort of credibility is lended to you?


Just like the same sex marriage dispute, when will the true Church stand and stop the continuing spread of liberal thinking inside the church that creates a compromise between the God's Word and Man's theories.

Or maybe when will you start thinking for yourself, and instead of regurgitating unwatned, overused, fallacious lies, and begin realising that you can't control everyone and everything.

Evolution may not seem to be such a big deal, but trying exanding the area of conversation to the divinty of Christ, His conception, His ressurection, the flood, the parting of the sea, a literal Moses, a literal Abraham, a literal Adam, and see what you learn.

Hey, some do it and their heads haven't exploded.

I have notice in my talks with theistic evolutionists that many question the divinity of Christ, claiming He was born not of the Holy Spirit, He did not raise from the dead, and that the Old Testament is just a myth and nothing in it really happened. I have seen the statement made that Jesus was not God, by theistic evolutionists.

Oh no!! The Gay Jew Liberal media is destroying the church!! Jesus help us!

As the theory itself may not be a big deal, it is a beginning of allowing the liberal theology of the world to creep into God's Word. Some may leave it at this theory and never question anything else in the Bible. It has been my experience that the majority of theistic evolutionists don't leave it at that and do question many teachings of the Bible, especially those found in the New Testament.

Bah, once you dudes started blabbing about a 6,000 year old earth, nobody is gonna listen.

Just think, 500 years ago, you would have been considered a liberal and probably would have been killed for your liberal views. Women voting? Black people with rights?? The conservatives have fought every liberal step of the way, and they always lose to progress. This is no different, and you're not going to win.
 
Quote:
Just like the same sex marriage dispute, when will the true Church stand and stop the continuing spread of liberal thinking inside the church that creates a compromise between the God's Word and Man's theories.

Quote:
Or maybe when will you start thinking for yourself, and instead of regurgitating unwatned, overused, fallacious lies, and begin realising that you can't control everyone and everything.


My, my, Asimov, did we touch on an open nerve? That's a rather caustic response to an otherwise sound statement. GodSaves is right about the insidious intrusion of man's thought into God's word. It's like a cancer that is eating away many Christians who don't understand the basis for Christian doctrine.

All major doctrines of Christianity are based either directly or indirectly on Genesis 1-11. Destroy this foundation and the rest of Christianity falls.

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity."
-- G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," in American Atheist, p.30, 9/20/79.
 
?

HGPgal said:
Quote:
Just like the same sex marriage dispute, when will the true Church stand and stop the continuing spread of liberal thinking inside the church that creates a compromise between the God's Word and Man's theories.

Quote:
Or maybe when will you start thinking for yourself, and instead of regurgitating unwatned, overused, fallacious lies, and begin realising that you can't control everyone and everything.


My, my, Asimov, did we touch on an open nerve? That's a rather caustic response to an otherwise sound statement. GodSaves is right about the insidious intrusion of man's thought into God's word. It's like a cancer that is eating away many Christians who don't understand the basis for Christian doctrine.

All major doctrines of Christianity are based either directly or indirectly on Genesis 1-11. Destroy this foundation and the rest of Christianity falls.

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity."
-- G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," in American Atheist, p.30, 9/20/79.
Were you disagreeing with Asimov or not?
 
Again, if we look to PEOPLE for the the truth, instead of to God for the truth, we will be deceived. People are not God. They can only lead us to THEIR minds rather than the mind of God. Scripture again has everything we need. Scripture is very clear about homosexuality, how man was created, & right and wrong. But the bible also prophesies that MANY will turn from the truth and instead, believe false teachers. Paul said that this would SPECIFICALLY happen if we look to MEN for the truth instead of God. So I could care less what some ministers say and others don't. They are not who I worship. I simply look to scripture because again, it has EVERYTHING I need.
 
Re: common ground

reznwerks said:
Does it put the fantastic claims and promises made in the bible in jeapordy?.
Why do you say this? I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, yet I believe in the divinity of Christ and the miracles described in the Bible. I also believe in the reality of prophecy.
 
Re: common ground

cubedbee said:
reznwerks said:
Does it put the fantastic claims and promises made in the bible in jeapordy?.
Why do you say this? I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, yet I believe in the divinity of Christ and the miracles described in the Bible. I also believe in the reality of prophecy.

Rezn, deists do not beleive in miracles and the like. Theistic evolutionists are not deists.
 
There is no common ground between the two. You are either on one side or the other.

Lu 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me"
 
Re: common ground

cubedbee said:
reznwerks said:
Does it put the fantastic claims and promises made in the bible in jeapordy?.
Why do you say this? I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, yet I believe in the divinity of Christ and the miracles described in the Bible. I also believe in the reality of prophecy.
I say this because in my way of thinking if you can't accept all of something as being true then you can't accept any of it. Let me give you an analogy on another subject. If I read a novel about the Civil War some of it may be true and some of it may not be. If I read a textbook about the civil war I am confident that it is accurate unless it has been proven otherwise. So if I am doing a termpaper I am going to use the textbook not the novel. I think most would agree that the bible is most often presented as a textbook even by those that are not religious. If it is now generally accepted that the creation story is a myth then all fantastic stories and claims made in the bible have to be looked at with suspicion until proved to be accurate. What you have done is simply sort out those things that you consider to be accurate from those that you consider to be inaccurate based on your own criteria for evidence. Everyone except those that insist on accepting the bible word for word has done this to some degree.
 
slanglep said:
There is no common ground between the two. You are either on one side or the other.

Lu 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me"

That's funny, considering they aren't on opposing sides.
 
The only real common ground between God and the evolutionist is that the former created the latter.
In reality the whole evolution debate is raised by those who would rather think that they originated from the rocks of the earth by accident and therefore any and all laws righteousness and morality is purely arbitrary, because if God didn't create you then you don't have to obey Him.
What I fail to see in any argument that has been put forward regarding evolutionis the horribly inconvenient states that must by needs occur during the evolutionary phase. Say for example, changing from fins to legs, Half fin is not going to aid survival in the water and half leg is not going to aid survival on land.
And what about the first flying creatures? When did they get the bright idea to change to feathers? Something that falls out once a yr rendering you almost helpless? Not an aid to survival methinks. And so onto the most noble of organs, the eye. Did the eye evolve? If it did why? and how did the first creatures, ( those without oracular cells survive? ) (Did colours exist?) But wait lets look at that altogether interesting act, copulation. What thinking organism would evolve to such a clumsy state of reproduction. Surely seperating male and female germinators into seperate bodies is a bit of a backward step, evolutionarily speaking. Survival of the fittest and all that. So maybe all you ameobas out there had better start cloning yourselves off to ensure you can survive the coming judgement, cause I tell you what, if you aint right with God then you might as well me a single cell life form.
Continue to argue, but remember always that in the end God will be proven to be right, and all of us, even me, will in a lot of things be proven to be wrong.
 
aboutface said:
What I fail to see in any argument that has been put forward regarding evolutionis the horribly inconvenient states that must by needs occur during the evolutionary phase. Say for example, changing from fins to legs, Half fin is not going to aid survival in the water and half leg is not going to aid survival on land.
A mudskipper would have to disagree with you.

And what about the first flying creatures? When did they get the bright idea to change to feathers?

When has desire ever been an evolutionary mechanism? You are also assuming that feathers are only associated with flight.

Something that falls out once a yr rendering you almost helpless? Not an aid to survival methinks.

Huh, wonder how modern birds cope with that.

And so onto the most noble of organs, the eye. Did the eye evolve? If it did why?

Various levels of eye complexity can be seen in mollusks,

and how did the first creatures, ( those without oracular cells survive? )

You are assuming that said creatures with eyes were predatory, what if they weren't? Also, there are several things that live today witout eyes just fine.

(Did colours exist?)

My guess is that color sensitivity happened later, I have dno idea really. I do find it odd that most reptiles have better color sensitivity than most mammals.

But wait lets look at that altogether interesting act, copulation. What thinking organism would evolve to such a clumsy state of reproduction. Surely seperating male and female germinators into seperate bodies is a bit of a backward step, evolutionarily speaking.

I am unsure of the benifit in plants, but in animals it is quite useful. When most hermaphrodites mate, both become pregnant. HOwever, when only one gets pregnant, the other is free to mate and pass along more genes (there are also hermaphrodites that actuallly fight, loser gets pregnant, winner goes and mates again, designated female would be useful as sometimes the critters kill each other). There's also an energy cost to keeping the organs going, if you only have on set that's cheaper. Asexual reprduction is great, but really doesn't shuffle the genes in neat was like sexual repreduction does. Even bacteria "figured" this out.

Survival of the fittest and all that. So maybe all you ameobas out there had better start cloning yourselves off to ensure you can survive the coming judgement, cause I tell you what, if you aint right with God then you might as well me a single cell life form.
Continue to argue, but remember always that in the end God will be proven to be right, and all of us, even me, will in a lot of things be proven to be wrong.


Huh, pride, interesting.
 
So if I have a theory that human beings came from bugs because of mutation, then that's a fact? Sorry, but theories are only theories.

There is no common ground between God and evolution because they contradict each other. The whoe reason for the theory of evolution is to say that we weren't created the way God created us. If all people believed that man was created the way the bible says we were created, then there would be no theories of evolution. It's a rebellious theory because it's intent is that the bible is wrong. Genesis clearly says that God created animals each in his own kind and animals are still breeding animals of their own kind today. Genesis also said that man was created separate from the animals in God's image, not from apes. It's no coincidence that evolutionists have to go back to pre-historic days so there is no recorded proof of evolution.
 
Heidi said:
So if I have a theory that human beings came from bugs because of mutation, then that's a fact? Sorry, but theories are only theories.
Erm, you would have a hypotheisis, you'd need evindence to back it up. If you were able to provide evidence that humans came from bugs, I'm sure the scientific community would like to hear about it.

Heidi said:
There is no common ground between God and evolution because they contradict each other. The whoe reason for the theory of evolution is to say that we weren't created the way God created us.

Here I thought it was because studies in biology and geology pointed in this direction. IF they were trying to prove/disprove God, they'd have to try to remove God form an experiment to test it, and that not exactly feasible, now is it?

Heidi said:
If all people believed that man was created the way the bible says we were created, then there would be no theories of evolution.
So... alelle frequencychange over time would never be observed, huh.

Heidi said:
It's a rebellious theory because it's intent is that the bible is wrong.
I thought its intent was to describe and make predictions of observations.


Heidi said:
Genesis clearly says that God created animals each in his own kind and animals are still breeding animals of their own kind today. Genesis also said that man was created separate from the animals in God's image, not from apes. It's no coincidence that evolutionists have to go back to pre-historic days so there is no recorded proof of evolution.

To be honest, I don't trust the bible word for word once I found that the text was oral tradition, then written down, and then translated. The bible isn't God, so I don't worship it. It should be inspirational, not an instruction manual.

$0.02
 
you assume a little too much in assuming that I assume that predatory animals had eyes. If we are to believe scientists then only events that can be repeated and documented are real. Try that on the virgin birth if Christ Jesus. Man alive some people just don't get it. it is not about what we think we can discover about nature, it is all about Jesus and who you say he is.
If you believe that He is the Creator and Lord, then you really need to start looking at everything else through the eyes of scripture, not through the eyes of modern science, which incidentally has got it wrong many more times than just evolution.
You see, if, as Genesis presents the creation of the world including the introduction of sin, and afterward death then there is no room for evolution, because as logical and obvious as evolution seems it does stand in direct opposition to the word of God. Why? Because of the one thing that had to be present for evolution to occur....... DEATH. There simply is not enough matter in the universe to provide for the evolutionary process that had to occur on this planet alone, if there was no death. But...... IF........ all things were created, in a similar form to the way you see them today, by an all powerful God who can do anything, then there are enough protons neutrons and whatever else sub atomic particles present here on this earth alone for that to have happened.
so you see, you have to take one pair of glasses off. Scripture clearly states that God created and man sinned thus entered death into the creation. Either that or man was around at about the time of your so called big bang, and that possibilty destroys your evolutionary process anyway.
 
Evidence? Eviendce changes faster than the weather. A favorite phrase of scientists is; "we now know" (that what we previously thought to be true is not.) There is much subjectivity in evidence. If someone is looking for evdience for or against something, then he will only see evidnece which seems to support his theories and reject the evidence that does not support it. That's call tunnel vision. That's why even guilty criminals can be exonnerated by a jury.
 
Back
Top