Christians battle each other over evolution

[Smalcald]

I actually think you can have it both ways.

What I mean is that we can look at the scientific method and we can look at evolution and its logical support. It does have support scientifically and we can certainly accept that and we need to understand the theory and why it is supported.

However, we believe in a God who intervenes in extraordinary ways who makes Himself known who creates love and beauty who is the author of all existence. So I would say yes evolution is a supported theory given what scientific theory is, within that context. God sent His only Son to live on earth, born of a Virgin, who died and yet rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Well NONE of those things are supported by any scientific theory. Do any of us doubt medical science and its view of biological death? Most of us fully accept medical science and how it defines death; do any of us believe medical science is going to find our soul either chemically or through imaging? Do we reject imaging because it does not see a soul we know exists? I don

[MorningGlory]

It's a bit out of my league too, but I did read the following by Francis Collins "feels that intelligent design poses a serious problem to Christian belief because it rejects Darwinian evolution, which he feels is supported by overwhelming evidence."

Collins claims to be an Evangelical Christian yet supports Darwinism. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either God created everything or He didn't.

Yes I know there is evolution WITHIN a species, but there is NO evidence for macro-evolution which is the whole of the Darwin Theory, so there is the rub. We did not evolve from some goo. Genesis clearly states otherwise.

I guess it really comes down to "hath God said?" and well, yeah, He did.

I believe, without a doubt, the Creation as described in Genesis. The TOE has us evolving from the earth and Genesis has us being made from the earth. God created and controls everything so it's my opinion that it's best to believe Him; after all, what did Darwin create? Other than a whole LOT of controversy? The proponents of man evolving from apes must keep pushing this theory. It is their mission to prove that man is not a created being and that there is no God. This Collins person can't be a Christian and, at the same time, believe that he is the greatgrandson of a chimpanzee. Logic tells us that just won't fly.

[Smalcald]

Yes he can be a Christian and is a Christian. In fact he is a great apologist for the faith and I believe has a special mission to reach the scientific community. He led the entire human Genome project. Christians have to stop being anti-intellectual, knowledge is not bad.

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

Evolution is not about belief or faith or God. It is simply one explanation for how things mutate and evolve over very long periods of time. It has scientific support. What makes us a Christian is a total faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done for us, not our understanding of scientific theory.

I have no problem with anything science says. I also believe that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Certainly science will contradict many of our beliefs, it contradicts our CENTRAL belief that a man rose from the dead and rose literally to sit with God and indeed was also God. Would you go to a doctor who's medical plan was to wait for you to rise from the dead?

[MorningGlory]

Yes he can be a Christian and is a Christian. In fact he is a great apologist for the faith and I believe has a special mission to reach the scientific community. He led the entire human Genome project. Christians have to stop being anti-intellectual, knowledge is not bad.

No, he can't. He does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Genesis doesn't portray God throwing things to chance, the chance that MAYBE a being (in His own image) will appear someday.

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

It does make good sense interspecially; species have to be able to change to survive. However.....no species has ever morphed into another.

Evolution is not about belief or faith or God. It is simply one explanation for how things mutate and evolve over very long periods of time. It has scientific support. What makes us a Christian is a total faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done for us, not our understanding of scientific theory.

That depends on what part of the TOE you're talking about.

I have no problem with anything science says. I also believe that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Certainly science will contradict many of our beliefs, it contradicts our CENTRAL belief that a man rose from the dead and rose literally to sit with God and indeed was also God. Would you go to a doctor who's medical plan was to wait for you to rise from the dead?

I fail to see the meaning of that analogy.

[Smalcald]

Inerrancy means correct, it does not have to mean everything is exactly literal.

Evolution is simply a theory and a pretty consistent one. But it has nothing to say about why anything even exists at all. For that we need God and we need Genesis, they are answering different questions. Collins believes that God has guided everything and has used evolution as part of His plan guiding it and knowing exactly how things would turn out, no chance at all. For me I believe in a literal 6 day creation as Genesis states, but I also believe that evolution is supported by some evidence.

I think my analogy is a good one. Medical science says that Christ could never have risen from the dead. Most of us accept the results of medical science, we don't throw out medical science simply because it denies the resurrection or the virgin birth or the soul itself even though we know medical science is wrong about those things never happening.

We should never be afraid of science as it is simply grasping at a little portion of God's handiwork. But it was never designed to understand God or say anything about God.

[Guest man]

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

What was a human before he became human?

[MorningGlory]

Inerrancy means correct, it does not have to mean everything is exactly literal.

I KNOW what inerrancy means....and the word 'literal' as well.

I think my analogy is a good one. Medical science says that Christ could never have risen from the dead. Most of us accept the results of medical science, we don't throw out medical science simply because it denies the resurrection or the virgin birth or the soul itself even though we know medical science is wrong about those things never happening.

I still don't get your analogy. The Resurrection was a supernatural event; nothing to do with medical science.

We should never be afraid of science as it is simply grasping at a little portion of God's handiwork. But it was never designed to understand God or say anything about God.

Who's afraid of science? Not accepting that man is descended from apes isn't fear; it's holding to the Truth.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes he can be a Christian and is a Christian.

He might be a Christian "religionist," but He is not a follower of Christ.

In fact he is a great apologist for the faith and I believe has a special mission to reach the scientific community.

No, according to Him, if we don't accept Evolution, then the Christian faith has no credibility or viability. He is NOT an apologist for the faith.

He led the entire human Genome project. Christians have to stop being anti-intellectual, knowledge is not bad.

Who is being "anti-intellectual?" Being intellectual doesn't mean swallowing everything someone says. The fact is, I can show from the Scripture where Collins' views are theologically imcompatible with the Bible particularly the plan of redemption.

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

No, it doesn't make good sense. It stands in direct opposition to the Bible. Evolution is defined by its most qualified proponents as a unguided, impersonal process void of any outside intelligent catalyst. The creation account shows that the world was created by a very personal God and that he continues to sustain and guide creation. You will need to decide if you belivee in Evolution or if you believe the Bible.

Evolution is not about belief or faith or God.

Evolution defies the very existence of God.

It is simply one explanation for how things mutate and evolve over very long periods of time. It has scientific support. What makes us a Christian is a total faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done for us, not our understanding of scientific theory.

You cannot be a Christian, but accept as factual a worldview that stands in direct opposition to the every essential, defining element of the Chrisitan faith.

Inerrancy means correct, it does not have to mean everything is exactly literal.

Inerrancy means "without error." And the text of Genesis 1 demands a literal interpretation as does any other given text.

For that we need God and we need Genesis, they are answering different questions.

Evoluton doesn't answer any questions at all. Genesis answers the how and why and the who.

Collins believes that God has guided everything and has used evolution as part of His plan guiding it and knowing exactly how things would turn out, no chance at all.

Which is an internally inconsistent position. Theistic Evolution is a sell out. It is really an oxymoron. It would be like trying to be an atheist and a Christian at the same time. Evolution is an uniguided process which precludes the possibility of it being guided by God.

Certainly science will contradict many of our beliefs, it contradicts our CENTRAL belief that a man rose from the dead and rose literally to sit with God and indeed was also God. Would you go to a doctor who's medical plan was to wait for you to rise from the dead?

The problems with your anaolgy are manifold. For one thing you think science shows that we don't have take the creation account "literally." Since you think your medical science analogy is applicable, do you also take a non literal view of the resurrection, or do you think Jesus LITERALLY rose from the dead?

Evolution is predicated on the nonexistence of God. At its core, it is an impersonal, unguided process. Medical science cannot be characterized that way. It is totally disimilar field of research and there are no points of comparison between it and the evolutionary model.

[Fraught]

I believe it's another huge distraction that divides while the hour grows later an later.

i can't agree that it is a distraction since it is the very thing that keeps many people that i know from believing in God. this is not abstract thought. these are real living people who are unsure, because of darwinian evolution, that God actually exists. if a person doubts the very existence of God, it is impossible to even get to Jesus Christ.

[Guest man]

I believe it's another huge distraction that divides while the hour grows later an later.

i can't agree that it is a distraction since it is the very thing that keeps many people that i know from believing in God. this is not abstract thought. these are real living people who are unsure, because of darwinian evolution, that God actually exists. if a person doubts the very existence of God, it is impossible to even get to Jesus Christ.

It's not just a distraction for the christian, it's also a distraction for the non-believer.

If people would apply just a little common sense, they would see that this whole evolution thing is nothing but a joke.