Christianity and science

[Guest shiloh357]

Far too many Christians don't even understand evolution and end up embarrassing themselves by asking ridiculous questions that could have been answered if they had taken some time to understand the most basic aspects of it from scientists who study it.

Actually, I have done that. Which is why I have found that it is impossible for a Christian to remain faithful to belief in an intelligent Creator, and at the same time hold to the evolutionary model. It is because I have studied proponents of Evolution such as the late Stephen J. Gould, et al., that I can see why they choose to reject the notion of an intelligent Creator.

Trying to fit Evolution with the Biblical account requires one to be completely dishonest about what Evolution is at its core.

[Bowap]

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index...t&p=1375378

[Bowap]

Shiloh357, if you have studied evolution then fine, I accept that, but a great many people haven't taken the time to at least understand why the scientific consensus today is what it is. They receive a distorted view of science from creationists that leaves them thinking "those crazy scientists, how can they believe all that stuff?"

Is it your view that Christians are theologically committed to a 6-day creation some time in the last 10,000 years, and that anything else is 'unbiblical'?

What do you say to Christians who say that the Bible clearly teaches geocentrism and that anything else is equally incompatible with Biblical Christianity (there are websites that advocate this believe me)?

Edited May 21, 2009 by Bowap

[Guest shiloh357]

Is it your view that Christians are theologically committed to a 6-day creation some time in the last 10,000 years, and that anything else is 'unbiblical'?

See, I don't think the length of time is all that important. The Bible speaks in observational, nontechnical language. So if it was a literal 6-24 hour day or not doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. What I DO think Christians need to be theologically committed to is the view that God created the universe as the Bible claimed and that the biblical account stands in stark contradiction to the theory of evolution, particularly where the creation of man is concerned.

What do you say to Christians who say that the Bible clearly teaches geocentrism and that anything else is equally incompatible with Biblical Christianity (there are websites that advocate this believe me)?

The Bible makes no geocentric claims. The Bible does not claim the earth is the center of the universe. People think the Bible is "geocentric" simply because it refers to the sun moving across the sky something similar.

Again, the Bible speaks in observational terms. Even today, we talk about sitting on the beach and watching the "sunset" or waking up at "sunrise." Meteorolgists will publish the exact times of sunrise and sunset each day in your local paper. The point is we use the same language in the Bible and we do not consider ourselves "geocentric." So, it is just bit hypocrytical for people to claim that the Bible is geocentric for using the same type of observational terminology.

The language the Bible uses is not "anti-Science," it is "pre-science." God communicated His Word to the common man in a terms the common man can understand and comprehend. The Bible is not a book of science and makes no real scientific claims, so it is ridiculous for the scientific community to find fault with the Bible with respect to science when the Bible isn't trying to be scientific in the first place.

[Botz]

Hi Bowap.... I would be interested if you could tell me how you think a person can hold the evolutionary concept that man gradually evolved into what he is today over millions of years, from a gloriously serendipitous gene pool that constantly mutated beneficially until from ape-like hominids arose Homo-Sapiens, and at the same time say they believe the Bible as the word of G-d....and why in this instance do you think the Messiah Jesus would be called the 'second Adam' if the first Adam was simply an allegorical figure to make uneducated humans have something understandable to grasp?

a great many people haven't taken the time to at least understand why the scientific consensus today is what it is. They receive a distorted view of science from creationists that leaves them thinking "those crazy scientists, how can they believe all that stuff?"

Could you give examples of three distorted views that some Creation Scientists promote....I might even agree with you?

[MorningGlory]

I do have an agenda, to make other Christians understand that it damages Christianity in the eyes of educated people when promoters of pseudoscience go around saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Noah's Ark had dinosaurs on it. I was fed up with Christians watching garbage disseminated by Kent Hovind and refusing to listen to anyone else. There is nothing wrong with a Christian thinking that young earth creationism is nonsense, and many are in fact deeply offended by the idea that certain parts of the Bible were somehow an attempt by God to pass on scientific information. Notice that I didn't call anyone dumb, but many Christians are taken in by scientific sounding propaganda from people who really should know better and which appears to give credibility to what they already believe. This isn't necessarily their fault, nobody can be an expert on everything and we all have to rely on certain people as our sources for information, but creationist websites and speakers spread endless factoids and misinformation, something those articles and videos attempt to address.

Christians can ignore reality and simply continue to fight a pointless battle that they can never win, or they can realise that science is simply a method for understanding God's creation and, as such, there can be no ultimate conflict between science and sound faith. Far too many Christians don't even understand evolution and end up embarrassing themselves by asking ridiculous questions that could have been answered if they had taken some time to understand the most basic aspects of it from scientists who study it. How many times have you heard the "if humans came from apes why are there still apes?" or "why don't monkeys give birth to humans anymore?" type questions? If people want to look at all the evidence from scientists, and also testimonies and information from scientists who see no conflict between evolutionary science and the doctrine God as creator, so that they are aware of all perspectives and then decide that evolution is still wrong or incompatible with Christianity, then OK, but in my experience far too many don't, they simply reject it out of hand.

http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/10/how...pire-faith.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030622051945/...rg/kmiller.html

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Oh, and if people want to talk about prejudice and discrimination I suggest that they go and read about Richard Colling, and find out how he was treated by "those who hold to the creation model."

I'm glad you admit you have an agenda and that's fine. As someone who has studied the evolutionary theory, and understands the TOE, I'm not sure why you believe it's your job to teach 'ignorant' Christians the Darwinian point of view. You're wasting your time; no true believer is going to accept being descended from apes when the Bible tells them they were created in God's image. This is heresy and a direct assault on the Word of God. I'm assuming you're not a believer....your words don't come from one who believes in either the Bible or the Messiah.

[Bowap]

Is Richard Colling a non-believer, or 'no true believer', simply because he said, "I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the Christian faith will be relegated to cultural obsolescence. With the genetic data derived from the human genome project and other sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to build the foundation of the Christian faith on opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is suicide for the long-term viability and credibility of the faith."

Does it make me a non-believer if I agree with him?

[Guest shiloh357]

Is Richard Colling a non-believer, or 'no true believer', simply because he said, "I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the Christian faith will be relegated to cultural obsolescence. With the genetic data derived from the human genome project and other sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to build the foundation of the Christian faith on opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is suicide for the long-term viability and credibility of the faith."

This shows his rather shallow understanding of Christianity. The foundation of the Christian faith is the ressurrection of Jesus and nothing else. The Christian faith is not founded on a rejection of evolution. Furthermore, the accepting Evolution or not accepting it has no bearing on the viability or credibility of the Christian faith. The Christian faith is rooted in Christ. Christianity, according to the Bible, is in no danger of losing credibility or viability. Evolution poses no threat to our faith.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that there are "Christians" and there are Christians. What I mean is that there are those who mentally assent to the Christian "religion" but they are not followers of Christ. There are people to bear the title of Christian, but it is simply based on the fact that they observe some externalities of the relgion. So, simply naming off someone who claims to be a "Christian" doesn't really add much to your position.

True Christians are followers of Christ who understand that Jesus is both God and the Creator of the univsere, thereby standing in stark contradiction to the theory of Evolution which cannot make room for such a Creator.

[Bowap]

So what about people who "are followers of Christ who understand that Jesus is both God and the Creator of the univsere" but then go on to become scientists? Are they not allowed to look at scientific evidence, and decide whether or not they find it compelling? Does accepting scientific explanations suddenly mean they "are not followers of Christ?" I don't even see how the theory of evolution could be in conflict with the idea of Jesus as "God and the Creator of the univsere" as it only explains biodiversity on Earth.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Bowap

[Guest shiloh357]

So what about people who "are followers of Christ who understand that Jesus is both God and the Creator of the univsere" but then go on to become scientists? Are they not allowed to look at scientific evidence, and decide whether or not they find it compelling? Does accepting scientific explanations suddenly mean they "are not followers of Christ?" I don't even see how the theory of evolution could be in conflict with the idea of Jesus as "God and the Creator of the univsere" as it only explains biodiversity on Earth.

Evolution stands in contradiction to Jesus on many fronts, not just as Creator. It stands in contradiction to the NT's teach of Jesus as the Last Adam, as well to the very plan of redemption itself.

The theory of Evolution is in conflict with Jesus as Creator on the grounds that Evolution as defined by the most qualified proponents of the theory (again people such as Gould), as a purely impersonal process. Evolution is defined as unguided, impersonal. This means that at its most basic fundamental level, Evolution is at odds with the Jesus who is not only the Creator of the Universe, but the very one who sustains and holds it together, according to the Bible. If you were a Christian, this fundamental contradiction would be apparent to you at once.

Science is not at odds with the Bible per se, but the theory of Evolution is one part of science that is. The theory simply cannot be reconciled with the Bible at any point.

It is impossible to accept Jesus as the Bible presents Him IF you hold to evolutionary model. Furthermore it is impossible to hold to the Bible as the Word of God if you hold to the evolutionary model.