Christians battle each other over evolution

[Guest man]

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

What was a human before he became human?

Before he he realized he was human, the human was an un-enlightened savage. In other words, sentient but not sapient. Lacking the epiphany of self-knowledge. What does it mean to be human? He does not know yet.

Not to be rude, but you should really allow Smalcald to answer for himself.

And I don't know about anyone else here, but I seriously doubt that Adam was nothing but a savage before the fall.

Quite the opposite actually.

[Smalcald]

Well if you are going to base your faith on trying to force the ideas and concepts of man which is what science IS, back into the Word of God you will have a problem. So when science says human beings without a doubt cannot rise from the dead, which it does shilo I am sorry. It does not say well we can't explain that, medical science states that a dead cell and a dead human is dead, no hope of resurrection of that body, none scientifically. So do you choose man or God, do you partake of medical science even though it denies the resection?

You see these questions are silly. I don't hang my hat on evolution it is not a faith it is simply one way to describe something. If a Christian says yes I can understand that I see how it works, that is not a problem. If they go on to say, well this means that our faith is not true, they have a big problem, they are basing their faith on something outside of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit they are relying on their own power, and if we do that we will fail. Our faith is faith from God from the Holy Spirit, it does not rest only on the half lighted logic of a human beings. It is NOT humanly logical for a human being to rise from the dead, yet it is the center of our faith. The center of our faith rests on something that science says cannot happen, and yet we KNOW it did.

So why get so wrapped up in each new shifting scientific theory? I mean even within their field they keep revising how old things are etc; it is obviously conjectured more than facts.

So I believe that God created the earth in six days, and six literal days. I also don't have a problem with the scientific method and what it comes up with. God could have created the earth and all of existence in 6 nano-seconds.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well if you are going to base your faith on trying to force the ideas and concepts of man which is what science IS, back into the Word of God you will have a problem.

That is not what my faith is based on. The Bible answers every question man has about how he got here, where came from and his purpose for living.

So when science says human beings without a doubt cannot rise from the dead, which it does shilo I am sorry. It does not say well we can't explain that, medical science states that a dead cell and a dead human is dead, no hope of resurrection of that body, none scientifically. So do you choose man or God, do you partake of medical science even though it denies the resection?

Again, you are comparing two different things. Science, no matter what field it is, is incomplete. Evolution requires the abandonment of any belief in God. Medical science does not. You are comparing to dissimlar fields of research.

You see these questions are silly. I don't hang my hat on evolution it is not a faith it is simply one way to describe something. If a Christian says yes I can understand that I see how it works, that is not a problem.

Actually, it is a problem. A very big problem.

So why get so wrapped up in each new shifting scientific theory? I mean even within their field they keep revising how old things are etc; it is obviously conjectured more than facts.

That amounts to oversimplifying the problem. No one is objecting to science or the scientific process. The problem is that Evolution is one field that is unique within science that strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith.

So I believe that God created the earth in six days, and six literal days. I also don't have a problem with the scientific method and what it comes up with. God could have created the earth and all of existence in 6 nano-seconds.

[Guest man]

Anyone here who believes that evolution is plausible, has got some serious issues to consider.

We did not come from a single cell entity. We did not crawl out of the ocean. We did not live in trees or crawl around on all fours.

God created us as we are today.

The topic isn't about sin or morals, it's about who we are, physically.

The Theory of Evolution makes no sense. There are so many flaws in that theory that I am just in awe as to the number of people who actually consider it to be real.

It's nothing more than a smokescreen orchestrated by the father of lies.

[nebula]

I haven't been writing my thoughts on this . . . mostly because I have so many I don't know where to begin, nor how to express any of them in a meaningful way.

On point I'd like to highlight, though is this.

Science is about observing and understanding the natural world. And so, science has to look to the natural world to understand the natural world. Seeking out the past helps us to understand the present.

A big complaint secular scientists have against the Creation debate is that it puts a cap, if you will, on scientific pursuits and studies. I'm not sure how to explain this in a way anyone here (who is not scientific minded) would appreciate. It's like talking with my brother about movies. I evaluate movies with my intellect (because that's how I process the world). But this drives my brother crazy. He doesn't care about plot and theme and consistency and all that; all he cares is whether or not he got a joy-ride out of the movie. Well, this is how the scientist feels and thinks arguing with the "God made it that is all you need to know" Creationist. We feel like Creationist consider it a sin to investigate and dig.

As a scientist, I am thrilled with the diggings and searchings. Sometimes neat things are discovered along the way. . . . like the wonders of the universe.

The problem as I understand it between secular science and religion, though, apart from what I mentioned above, is that secular science begins with the premise that the natural world is all that there is. Now that any Christian I am sure can and should agree with. Personally, I believe Creation Scientists get too bogged down with trying to disprove evolution that they don't spend enough time simply examining the evidence as-is, but from the premise of God-Creator. (Can you see the difference?)

Anyway, I hope somebody understands what I'm trying to get at.

Oh, I also agree with what Shiloh wrote here:

The problem is that Evolution is seen by those opposed to biblical Christianity as an escape from accountability before the Universal Moral Lawgiver and the Judge of all mankind....

They won't admit it, but subconsciously I have observed this to be true.

[Guest shiloh357]

A big complaint secular scientists have against the Creation debate is that it puts a cap, if you will, on scientific pursuits and studies. I'm not sure how to explain this in a way anyone here (who is not scientific minded) would appreciate. It's like talking with my brother about movies. I evaluate movies with my intellect (because that's how I process the world). But this drives my brother crazy. He doesn't care about plot and theme and consistency and all that; all he cares is whether or not he got a joy-ride out of the movie. Well, this is how the scientist feels and thinks arguing with the "God made it that is all you need to know" Creationist. We feel like Creationist consider it a sin to investigate and dig.

I don't really know of any regular Christian that is opposed to scientific inquiry pertaining to how the world works. Most Christians are not opposed to science per se. We use science every day when we make our food, brush our teeth or drive our car.

An opposition to the Evolutionary model is not an opposition to science or the scientific method or any of the science disciplines.

What most of us oppose is being told that the Bible cannot be taken seriously as a genuine, historical account of the origin of man, and that we must adopt a theory that is predicated on the absence of a personal Creator. If we don't accept the evolutionary model, we are cast as anti-Science and I don't think that is fair.

I realize that you are not saying that, but a lot of those who support the evolutionary model do.

[nebula]

No, I seem to recall reading a lot of complaints about scientists digging up fossils and a whole lot of other stuff.

"God made it, so why bother?"

Something along those lines.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I seem to recall reading a lot of complaints about scientists digging up fossils and a whole lot of other stuff.

"God made it, so why bother?"

Something along those lines.

I was not aware of that. I think you will have some Christians who are opposed to science, but I don't think they are mainstream. I have never seen any mainstream Christian organizations or ministries state any kind of opposition to science.

[nebula]

I've seen it posted on the Boards here.

[nebula]

I agree Charitow