The vain philosophy of men.

[Steve_S]

There are and have always been (since I've been here anyway) a fairly large number of active posts dedicated to the discussion of where evolution fits into Christianity. I'm a young earth creationist, I make no apologies about this and I think it's fairly simple just to read the Bible and believe what it says. However, having said that, I harbor no ill will or judgement towards my brothers and sisters in Christ who believe that the theory of evolution fits within scripture through the gap theory, the day age theory, or any other of the litany of individual or combined theories with regards to this that are currently out there. I don't personally believe that this is a salvational issue and believe that it does not have any direct bearing on one's salvation, so this is not the direction from which I approach this topic.

I don't so much have a question as much as I have a statement that I'd be willing to discuss.

I fully believe that the theory of evolution (which is fairly new on the world stage) does fall under:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

For me, the secular application of the theory of evolution is no different than a religion (to be sure, here I speak of how it's applied by atheists and shapes their world views, not applied by believers who have adopted it and believe it fits with the scripture). I think that it takes a certain amount of faith to believe it. I believe that its primary origin comes from someone who was actively seeking an alternate secular principle with which to explain the creation. I believe that the secular humanist world view that has arisen from this theory has had massive consequences. Marxism and naziism are firmly rooted in a debased application of evolutionary principle.

Furthermore I believe that it's quite possible that the Bible itself addresses people who very much seem like those we see today pushing the secular Godless version of evolution that has insidiously infiltrated our educational institutions and is quietly and concertedly tainting young minds with the vain philosophy of men:

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

I believe that the secular application of the theory of evolution is a simple form of self worship that has its roots go all the way back to the fall:

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Ye shall be as gods..... I believe that at its core this is what secular evolution teaches. Humans are gods. Humans are THE apex animal of biological evolution. Humans possess myriad characteristics that no other animals possess and therefore humans are the most divine beings that exist, as chosen randomly by evolution. In short, humans are the most intelligent beings, therefore the most intelligent humans are the most enlightened entities in existence.

I believe that the secular application of evolution directly attempts to usurp the authority of the sovereign God of the universe through willing ignorance.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

I realize this topic could have just as well went into outer court under faith v science and I would understand if it did get relocated there, however, my intent is to hear what believers feel with regards to this without the interjections from others who aren't believers.

As I stated earlier this is more of a statement of understanding with regards to this issue rather than a general question about it, though I welcome your thoughts.

[wingnut-]

I agree with you steve, this is a position I have held for some time, and I think that from the first sin, man has done nothing more fervently than attempt to elevate himself, great post.

[JTC]

Steve,

I was lucky in one way regarding this. I was taught God created all things since as far back as my memory goes, which is roughly 3 years old. I didn't even hear of evolution until I was 10 or 11 and even then it was presented to me as something scientists believe, but it's wrong based on our God. So while it held some interest for me, I never considered it true. When I got into HS and then collage I did a little investigation of my own. Obviously I asked some honest professors because they told me straight out that's a theory that was never proven. And there you have it. The truth is the theory of evolution as an origins of anything is totally without proof. There is no evidence that one species ever evolved into another species. If man is the apex of all God created, it's because God created us that way. I find it so sad that today, some 30 years after professors told me it's an unproven theory, that we who believe God created all things are trying to disprove it. I'll say again, in science you can't disprove anything, you can only prove something. Evolution was never proven, so it's impossible to even try to disprove it. I suppose I'm going to go to my grave saying this, and that's ok. All the people younger than me, and all the people who are my age who didn't look into evolution as deeply as I did need to hear this.

Evolution is an unproven theory. It's a false idea. But as you pointed out Steve, it appeals to man's vanity, and inasmuch as it does, satan keeps it alive and well. But it's false.

As for a young Earth, I'm less well versed in that idea. If carbon dating is wrong then we know nothing of Earth and the Universe based on science. All I remember from school about Carbon dating is that it has a high probability of being correct. In true science we deal with probabilities, and something with very high probabilities may be considered as facts, unless an alternative theory has an even higher probability. I don't see a young Earth or an old Earth meaning anything about God. At this time I think the Earth is old so I don't consider the 7 days in Genesis as 24 hour periods. God likes to tell us what He did, but He's less fond about telling us how He did it. I personally believe an old Earth causes less problems with what science discovers, and doesn't clash with God.

But again, it's sad that we're trying to argue a case that unproven theory is false.

[ByFaithAlone]

I am personally a theistic evolutionist like a few other people on the forum. To me, the idea that life evolved does not destroy the idea that God is powerful but rather makes his intelligence even more apparent. As to the idea that it takes faith to believe in evolution, I would say that such an idea is partly true. One has to have faith that what modern science has shown us is accurate and that probability holds true. You may be able to call this faith, but I would call it using Occam's razor (choosing the most reasonable and simplest explanation for a set of facts).

Insert what bary said about evolution and there being no apex, etc.

Moving on to the idea that evolution is a theory. In science, there is a huge difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I hypothesis may be an educated guess but a theory is backed by tons of research in a particular area and generally proposes a mechanism which lines up with all the facts that we have but cannot be proven due to a given restraint. Examples of famous theories yet to be called law (pure fact):

Theory of General Relativity - Einstein's famous theory which is accepted by 99.99999999999999% of scientists and the public. Perhaps in time it will be made a law but as of now all we can say is that nothing disagrees with it (similarly to evolution).

String or M-theory - a relatively new theory that definitely doesn't have all of the kinks worked out of it but looks like a promising chance to unify the world of quantum mechanics with general relativity but it shows promise

[Steve_S]

There are and have always been (since I've been here anyway) a fairly large number of active posts dedicated to the discussion of where evolution fits into Christianity. I'm a young earth creationist, I make no apologies about this and I think it's fairly simple just to read the Bible and believe what it says. However, having said that, I harbor no ill will or judgement towards my brothers and sisters in Christ who believe that the theory of evolution fits within scripture through the gap theory, the day age theory, or any other of the litany of individual or combined theories with regards to this that are currently out there. I don't personally believe that this is a salvational issue and believe that it does not have any direct bearing on one's salvation, so this is not the direction from which I approach this topic.

I don't so much have a question as much as I have a statement that I'd be willing to discuss.

I fully believe that the theory of evolution (which is fairly new on the world stage) does fall under:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

For me, the secular application of the theory of evolution is no different than a religion (to be sure, here I speak of how it's applied by atheists and shapes their world views, not applied by believers who have adopted it and believe it fits with the scripture). I think that it takes a certain amount of faith to believe it. I believe that its primary origin comes from someone who was actively seeking an alternate secular principle with which to explain the creation. I believe that the secular humanist world view that has arisen from this theory has had massive consequences. Marxism and naziism are firmly rooted in a debased application of evolutionary principle.

Furthermore I believe that it's quite possible that the Bible itself addresses people who very much seem like those we see today pushing the secular Godless version of evolution that has insidiously infiltrated our educational institutions and is quietly and concertedly tainting young minds with the vain philosophy of men:

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

I believe that the secular application of the theory of evolution is a simple form of self worship that has its roots go all the way back to the fall:

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Ye shall be as gods..... I believe that at its core this is what secular evolution teaches. Humans are gods. Humans are THE apex animal of biological evolution. Humans possess myriad characteristics that no other animals possess and therefore humans are the most divine beings that exist, as chosen randomly by evolution. In short, humans are the most intelligent beings, therefore the most intelligent humans are the most enlightened entities in existence.

I believe that the secular application of evolution directly attempts to usurp the authority of the sovereign God of the universe through willing ignorance.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

I realize this topic could have just as well went into outer court under faith v science and I would understand if it did get relocated there, however, my intent is to hear what believers feel with regards to this without the interjections from others who aren't believers.

As I stated earlier this is more of a statement of understanding with regards to this issue rather than a general question about it, though I welcome your thoughts.

Evolution if understood appropriately says nothing about the humans being the apex of anything. Humans are a branch on an evolutionary tree of life, one branch, among many. Evolution alone is directionless, admits no 'superior' species to another. It's a simple statement of fact that entities that are able to reproduce from generation to generation have their genes passed on, and there is where it begins and ends. Slugs are not lower or higher, they are simply our contemporaries, same with ecoli or goldfish.

Nazism was inspired by evolution in a profoundly scientifically ignorant manner, as well as Marxism and its dialectic. In order to have a telos you must introduce a standard alien to the theory of evolution itself. I suggest God provides that, and perhaps in some indirect manner objective moral truths. Nazis suggested some idiotic notion of aryan supremacy, Marxists that there is some historic class struggle. None of these suggestions is remotely entailed by the theory of evolution itself.

You're looking at the relationship of naziism and marxism to evolution from a purely scientific perspective though. Clearly the theory itself provided enough support for their argument for an ignorant public to engage in support of them partially based upon this (especially naziism). In other words, a skewed and misrepresented scientific basis for genocide was easier than having no basis at all. Also, it's not as if early evolutionary scientists didn't give them SOME basis. Darwin himself said:

"Caucasian races have beaten (other races) in the struggle for existence … an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

You're looking through the eyes of modern evolutionary science. Evolutionary science was not nearly as refined in 1933 when the nazis came to power as it is now. It was basically in its infancy. There was widespread belief by many people that there were underdeveloped races due to evolution. The father of the theory himself made claims such as this. So I think it's important that where the theory comes from be recognized as much as where it is at now. It's impossible for me to believe that the general rise of political correctness and social pressures haven't at the least assisted the evolution of the theory of evolution along in becoming what it is now, anyway. Scientists are people, after all.

[Steve_S]

But that's what the modern theory of evolution *is* though. It really makes no sense to claim that some are 'higher' than others, and in all truth, it never made sense to say that. Saying that some species is 'better at survival' has nothing to do with value or worth, it never did, and if people thought that, they were wrong, be it Darwin or Hitler. That is aside from the issues of factual error. Recall, not even Darwin knew how evolution should work exactly, the physical mechanism wasn't available to him.

But that's what the modern theory of evolution *is* though. It really makes no sense to claim that some are 'higher' than others, and in all truth, it never made sense to say that. Saying that some species is 'better at survival' has nothing to do with value or worth, it never did, and if people thought that, they were wrong, be it Darwin or Hitler. That is aside from the issues of factual error. Recall, not even Darwin knew how evolution should work exactly, the physical mechanism wasn't available to him.

That's really irrelevant. The theory came from somewhere. This is much like saying "well, I realize the japanese attacked pearl harbor, but since it's none of the japanese in charge now we should call them gurglebricks so as not to offend their sensitivities." The unqualified fact remains that evolutionary theory taught racial superiority from its inception through the 50s. It was part of it and it was believed by more than simple followers, as it was something initiated by darwin himself. So it's certainly not inaccurate to say that evolutionists believed in naturally selective racial superiority, as the father of the movement believed in it and darwin is evolution, for lack of a better phrase.

[ByFaithAlone]

You're looking at the relationship of naziism and marxism to evolution from a purely scientific perspective though. Clearly the theory itself provided enough support for their argument for an ignorant public to engage in support of them partially based upon this (especially naziism). In other words, a skewed and misrepresented scientific basis for genocide was easier than having no basis at all. Also, it's not as if early evolutionary scientists didn't give them SOME basis. Darwin himself said:

"Caucasian races have beaten (other races) in the struggle for existence … an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

You're looking through the eyes of modern evolutionary science. Evolutionary science was not nearly as refined in 1933 when the nazis came to power as it is now. It was basically in its infancy. There was widespread belief by many people that there were underdeveloped races due to evolution. The father of the theory himself made claims such as this. So I think it's important that where the theory comes from be recognized as much as where it is at now. It's impossible for me to believe that the general rise of political correctness and social pressures haven't at the least assisted the evolution of the theory of evolution along in becoming what it is now, anyway. Scientists are people, after all.

This argument is flawed. You are arguing that because one group of people misrepresented a scientific theory, the scientific theory itself must also be flawed. This is not necessarily true and commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.