Why Must the Church Come to Accept Evolution?

[Hal P]

Interesting article and video by Bruce Waltke. Waltke is a world-renowned Old Testament scholar, Biblical translator and expositor. He served on the translation committee of both the New American Standard Bible and New International Version -- two of the most popular modern translations of the Bible produced in the twentieth century. Waltke is a professor emeritus of Old Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia and a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

http://biologos.org/blog/why-must-the-chur...cept-evolution/

In this video conversation Bruce Waltke discusses the danger the Church will face if it does not engage with the world around it, in particular with the issue of evolution, which many evangelicals still reject.

Waltke cautions,

[OneLight]

To answer you question in your title, it doesn't. To follow a man is wrong. To follow God is right. To say that a man is right and scripture is wrong is placing your faith in a man. Man can not save and has only a very small fraction of the truth where God can save and has all truth. I am sure if you keep digging, you will find more people from high places that will agree with you. That is your choice and you will have to live with the consequences.

[MorningGlory]

Interesting article and video by Bruce Waltke. Waltke is a world-renowned Old Testament scholar, Biblical translator and expositor. He served on the translation committee of both the New American Standard Bible and New International Version -- two of the most popular modern translations of the Bible produced in the twentieth century. Waltke is a professor emeritus of Old Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia and a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

http://biologos.org/blog/why-must-the-chur...cept-evolution/

In this video conversation Bruce Waltke discusses the danger the Church will face if it does not engage with the world around it, in particular with the issue of evolution, which many evangelicals still reject.

Waltke cautions, "if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult

[Guest shiloh357]

Waltke cautions,

[nebula]

Waltke points out that to deny scientific reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world. For us as Christians, this would serve as our spiritual death because we would not be loving God with all of our minds. It would also be our spiritual death in witness to the world because we would not be seen as credible.

Coming to Jesus is about Jesus. If Christians embrace evolution do you honestly believe non-Christians will be more likely to embrace Jesus and their Savior from sin and Lord of their lives?

If we don

[Guest shiloh357]

Interesting article and video by Bruce Waltke. Waltke is a world-renowned Old Testament scholar, Biblical translator and expositor. He served on the translation committee of both the New American Standard Bible and New International Version -- two of the most popular modern translations of the Bible produced in the twentieth century. Waltke is a professor emeritus of Old Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia and a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

http://biologos.org/blog/why-must-the-chur...cept-evolution/

In this video conversation Bruce Waltke discusses the danger the Church will face if it does not engage with the world around it, in particular with the issue of evolution, which many evangelicals still reject.

Waltke cautions,

[Hal P]

At one time the data is overwhelmingly was in favor of the earth being flat, the data was wrong.

At one time the data is overwhelmingly was in favor of the earth being the center of the universe.

I should point out that neither of these is true. Both of these were believed by people at the time not because they had "overwhelming data" but because they in fact had no data. It wasn't a case of millions of well-trained people all simultaneously misinterpreting the data, it was just that they didn't have any data to work with and so reached erroneous conclusions. They weren't using science to find out how the natural world works, they were relying to a large extent on historical traditions and what they thought sacred texts taught. As soon as the scientific data started to come in to indicate that these views were wrong, they were eventually abandonded (although still not quite - http://www.geocentricity.com/).

Edited March 24, 2010 by Hal P

[Guest shiloh357]

At one time the data is overwhelmingly was in favor of the earth being flat, the data was wrong.

At one time the data is overwhelmingly was in favor of the earth being the center of the universe.

I should point out that neither of these is true. Both of these were believed by people at the time not because they had "overwhelming data" but because they in fact had no data. It wasn't a case of millions of well-trained people all simultaneously misinterpreting the data, it was just that they didn't have any data to work with and so reached erroneous conclusions. They weren't using science to find out how the natural world works, they were relying to a large extent on historical traditions and what they thought sacred texts taught. As soon as the scientific data started to come in to indicate that these views were wrong, they were eventually abandonded (although still not quite - http://www.geocentricity.com/).

And 700 years from now, scientists will be saying the same thing about what passes for science today.

[nebula]

At one time the data is overwhelmingly was in favor of the earth being flat, the data was wrong.

At one time the data is overwhelmingly was in favor of the earth being the center of the universe.

I should point out that neither of these is true. Both of these were believed by people at the time not because they had "overwhelming data" but because they in fact had no data. It wasn't a case of millions of well-trained people all simultaneously misinterpreting the data, it was just that they didn't have any data to work with and so reached erroneous conclusions. They weren't using science to find out how the natural world works, they were relying to a large extent on historical traditions and what they thought sacred texts taught. As soon as the scientific data started to come in to indicate that these views were wrong, they were eventually abandonded (although still not quite - ).

I'm going to have to correct both of you.

What we know as science began as philosophical musings. The ancient mathematicians were the only ones utilizing what we now know as science.

Anyway, these guys ancients determined long ago that the earth was round, not flat:

- Traveling from Greece to N. Africa they could see a change in the positions of the constellations.

- Watching ships pass over the horizon, they could see them disappear as if around a sphere.

- Watching a lunar eclipse, they could see the round shadow of the earth pass over the moon.

- in the 200's BC, a mathematician named Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the circumference of the Earth (with near accuracy) - why would he have done that if it was thought the Earth was flat?

- Christopher Columbus wasn't arguing the roundness of the Earth but its circumference. He relied on a method that calculated a smaller circumference - thus making a westward voyage to India apparently feasible. (You can read about it here.)

[Hal P]

Nebula, I agree with you , I don't see how what you added is in disagreement with what I said. Some people did think the earth was flat. They thought that not because the data they had turned out to be wrong, or misunderstood, but simply because they didn't have any. As soon as they applied scientific thinking to the idea they discovered it was wrong. Same goes for geocentrism.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Hal P