Questions for people who say Christians can't accept evolution

[Hal P]

This claim that Christianity and evolution can not co-exist has been repeated by essentially every creationist on here, most recently by shiloh357 - http://www.worthychristianforums.com/darwi...87#entry1450587 - so that is who this is mainly directed at, although it applies to everyone else who makes the same assertions.

When Christians become trained in the sciences and then encounter what they consider to be compelling evidence for evolution, what do you think they should do? From what you are saying, the only option is for them to renounce their belief in Christianity and become non-believers. Is that what you would want them to do rather than becoming theistic evolutionists? Are they not allowed to share what they have learned as scientists with their fellow Christians? At what point does the evidence from natural revelation reach a level where it has to be seriously considered? How do you know that it is not your interpretation of the Bible that is flawed? Even if you disagree with scientists, have you read evangelical theologians and scholars who disagree with you; John Walton, Denis Lamoureux (he is both a scientist and a theologian), or Bruce Waltke?

[ConScience]

This claim that Christianity and evolution can not co-exist has been repeated by essentially every creationist on here, most recently by shiloh357 - http://www.worthychristianforums.com/darwi...87#entry1450587 - so that is who this is mainly directed at, although it applies to everyone else who makes the same assertions.

When Christians become trained in the sciences and then encounter what they consider to be compelling evidence for evolution, what do you think they should do? From what you are saying, the only option is for them to renounce their belief in Christianity and become non-believers. Is that what you would want them to do rather than becoming theistic evolutionists? Are they not allowed to share what they have learned as scientists with their fellow Christians? At what point does the evidence from natural revelation reach a level where it has to be seriously considered? How do you know that it is not your interpretation of the Bible that is flawed? Even if you disagree with scientists, have you read evangelical theologians and scholars who disagree with you; John Walton, Denis Lamoureux (he is both a scientist and a theologian), or Bruce Waltke?

You know what, Hal? Christianity follows science at a respectable distance.

Most people now accept that the world is not flat, that the sun is the center of the universe, etc. (even though these are all 'theories', in the same way that evolution is).

So, given some time, Christians will accept evolution as given.

I give it 50 years (much shorter than it took for the solar system model to be accepted).

Hopefully, we can just hasten the inevitable.

[Guest shiloh357]

This claim that Christianity and evolution can not co-exist has been repeated by essentially every creationist on here, most recently by shiloh357 - http://www.worthychristianforums.com/darwi...87#entry1450587 - so that is who this is mainly directed at, although it applies to everyone else who makes the same assertions.

When Christians become trained in the sciences and then encounter what they consider to be compelling evidence for evolution, what do you think they should do? From what you are saying, the only option is for them to renounce their belief in Christianity and become non-believers. Is that what you would want them to do rather than becoming theistic evolutionists? Are they not allowed to share what they have learned as scientists with their fellow Christians? At what point does the evidence from natural revelation reach a level where it has to be seriously considered? How do you know that it is not your interpretation of the Bible that is flawed? Even if you disagree with scientists, have you read evangelical theologians and scholars who disagree with you; John Walton, Denis Lamoureux (he is both a scientist and a theologian), or Bruce Waltke?

Theistic Evolution is an oxymoron. It is like claiming to believe in Atheistic Christianity.

Not every scientist is an evolutionist. Scientists who claim to believe the Genesis account are the brunt of mockery and some have even lost their jobs or have been threatened into silence upon pain of losing their jobs.

Believing in God as the Creator is mocked by being equated with naive belief in Santa Clause or pink unicorns.

The proponents of evolution have expressed nothing but sheer outrage at Creationism being taught alongside evolution in the public classroom.

It is the evolutionist camp which has made it clear that evolution is not compatible with the Bible's account in creation and that if someone wants to believe in the biblical record of creation, they should keep it to themselves and not allow that view to see the light day outside the walls of their church.

Frankly, the evolutionists are a bit disingenuous. Belief in God is seen as on the level of a child's fairytale, but if they find someone who claims to be a Christian, the evolutionists parade such people around as trophies.

The only interest you folks have in "theistic evolutionists" is that they are pawns to use against people who believe the Bible's account of creation.

How do you know that it is not your interpretation of the Bible that is flawed?

You obviously don't understand the nature of interpretation. The Bible follows the rules of literature and must be interpreted in the light of those rules. Interpretation is not a subjective endeavor where each person decides what it means for them. Interpretation is always objective and is based on the intent of the author. The Bible as written, makes no room for Evolution. That is something that most evolutionists acknowledge, as do most Christians.

The fact that some Christians decide to buy into evolution, does add credibility to Evolution, it does not make Evolution suitable for Christian consumption. When confronted with both Evolution and the Bible, a person has to make a choice. Rejecting evolution is not a wholesale rejection of science, though. Characterizing a rejection of evolution as a rejection of science itself is an unfair and inaccurate accusation.

[Guest shiloh357]

This claim that Christianity and evolution can not co-exist has been repeated by essentially every creationist on here, most recently by shiloh357 - http://www.worthychristianforums.com/darwi...87#entry1450587 - so that is who this is mainly directed at, although it applies to everyone else who makes the same assertions.

When Christians become trained in the sciences and then encounter what they consider to be compelling evidence for evolution, what do you think they should do? From what you are saying, the only option is for them to renounce their belief in Christianity and become non-believers. Is that what you would want them to do rather than becoming theistic evolutionists? Are they not allowed to share what they have learned as scientists with their fellow Christians? At what point does the evidence from natural revelation reach a level where it has to be seriously considered? How do you know that it is not your interpretation of the Bible that is flawed? Even if you disagree with scientists, have you read evangelical theologians and scholars who disagree with you; John Walton, Denis Lamoureux (he is both a scientist and a theologian), or Bruce Waltke?

You know what, Hal? Christianity follows science at a respectable distance.

Most people now accept that the world is not flat, that the sun is the center of the universe, etc. (even though these are all 'theories', in the same way that evolution is).

So, given some time, Christians will accept evolution as given.

I give it 50 years (much shorter than it took for the solar system model to be accepted).

Hopefully, we can just hasten the inevitable.

Geocentricism was a secular belief. It was adopted by Christians who accepted the science of the time period. Back then the church was political entity not merely a religious one. Geocentricism was not based out of religious dogma. It was not a doctrine in the purest sense.

[humbleseeker]

Evolution is true to a certain exstant we, have seen how civilization has evolved throughout time and became more advanced. Although I am not a believer that we came from monkeys. God created man in his image. I do however believe that Science and religion can go hand in hand. The more we learn about are world, opens are eyes to the mind of God. He is creator we discover and learn.

[CSLewis]

Yom is not a 24 hr day, it is not literal.

[MorningGlory]

You know what, Hal? Christianity follows science at a respectable distance.

Most people now accept that the world is not flat, that the sun is the center of the universe, etc. (even though these are all 'theories', in the same way that evolution is).

So, given some time, Christians will accept evolution as given.

I give it 50 years (much shorter than it took for the solar system model to be accepted).

Hopefully, we can just hasten the inevitable.

So you admit your purpose is to convince Christians that we are not created beings but apes with cell phones?

[MorningGlory]

This claim that Christianity and evolution can not co-exist has been repeated by essentially every creationist on here

They can't.

[Fraught]

This claim that Christianity and evolution can not co-exist has been repeated by essentially every creationist on here, most recently by shiloh357 - http://www.worthychristianforums.com/darwi...87#entry1450587 - so that is who this is mainly directed at, although it applies to everyone else who makes the same assertions.

When Christians become trained in the sciences and then encounter what they consider to be compelling evidence for evolution, what do you think they should do? From what you are saying, the only option is for them to renounce their belief in Christianity and become non-believers. Is that what you would want them to do rather than becoming theistic evolutionists? Are they not allowed to share what they have learned as scientists with their fellow Christians? At what point does the evidence from natural revelation reach a level where it has to be seriously considered? How do you know that it is not your interpretation of the Bible that is flawed? Even if you disagree with scientists, have you read evangelical theologians and scholars who disagree with you; John Walton, Denis Lamoureux (he is both a scientist and a theologian), or Bruce Waltke?

The thing is, Hal, that even christians who are not 'trained' in the sciences do encounter evidence for evolution. the question is, so what? Just because evidence exists for 'such and such' does not make it true. we have only to look at our own lives to see the truth of this. a study of history tells us the same.

to sum up, evidence may exist, but proof does not. so, certainly there are other options.

[CSLewis]

Yom is not a 24 hr day, it is not literal.

That depends on what context the word is used in.

What is amazing is that our salvation is pivotal on whether or not "yom" is translated as a 24hr time frame or many generations- this is not a rejection of doctrine