why I believe in Christ and evolution

[nebula]

I think evolution is true because it seems true based on the evidence. The more I have looked into the case, the stronger it seems, if anything. By evolution here I mean the diversity of life on earth now arising from a common ancestor through descent with modification. Along with that is the view that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that he universe is 13.7 billion years old. I believe further that God originated everything that exists, controls it, and I believe that God created us through these various physical means. It is possible to believe Col 1:16 and also think the Big Bang and evolutionary story is true about the world. The latter describes physical processes by which God creates. Nothing would exist at all without God willing it.

 

I can appreciate your position on this, especially since you've been immersed in science for years before coming to Jesus.

 

As you study the interpretations given to the evidence, though, please keep in mind that the conventional interpretation is working from the framework base of "nature is all there is." If nothing else, this should tell you that the TOE is missing something critical to the equation.

[nebula]

You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish.  

 

This is an odd statement.

 

I believe Genesis is about Jesus.

 

I do not believe it is about science, nor a scientific account of thing.

 

If anything, I believe trying to integrate science into Genesis 1 takes away from seeing Jesus in it.

[Hello]

what

 

You said “I think evolution is true because it seems true based on the evidence.”

 

The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support the naturalistic models of reality (i.e. Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology) can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). Therefore, the distinction between the two positions has nothing to do with the existence or amount of evidence, but rather how one's faith presupposition influences the interpretation of the evidence; and which interpretations are preferred. So there is no legitimate, objective, scientific reason for any Christian to set aside their confidence in the reliability of the Biblical account.

 

The implication of your statement is that creationism is not supported by evidence – which demonstrates that you have not fairly considered the creationist position.

 

 

“The more I have looked into the case, the stronger it seems”

 

This perspective is based more in presupposition, than in an objective consideration of the science involved. Just last year I completes a Bachelor of Science; Majoring in Biology. Even though almost all of my course material was taught from an evolutionary perspective, no evidence was provided that couldn’t otherwise be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model.

 

Historically, what we would call modern-science was originally conducted from the Biblical-theistic perspective. Then around the late 1700s, a new framework for science began to be promoted – now called naturalism (the faith paradigm which only considers natural explanations to qualify as truth). Since that time, the naturalistic perspective has become so ubiquitous in science that it is the only scientific perspective that most people ever encounter (i.e. in school, university, science documentaries etc.). This gives the logically false impression that naturalism is the only valid scientific perspective – which subsequently causes some Christians to falsely believe that they are rationally obligated to submit the authority of scripture to secular/naturalistic models.

I wonder what is the evidence that made alphparticle believe that.

[alphaparticle]

 

Connor, that is typically how I've seen it as a minimum. It reveals important theological truths such as, there is only one God, He is incredibly powerful, He created everything,He created us with special intention, we were exiled from His direct presence due to sin, etc. Many things. My concern is, in allegorizing it away, am I just indulging in an ad hoc reading? While I think those theological truths are there either way, I am not comfortable in saying that I can dismiss the specific content of the narrative either.

I can only recommend digging into the cultural background (2nd millennium B.C.).  You said that you believe in evolution because of the evidence.  But history books are also written "because of evidence".  So are interpretations of Scripture.  When you pick up an English translation of the Bible, the words chosen to represent the Hebrew or Greek are chosen based on some kind of "evidence".  We are constantly consulting commentaries written by people familiar with the time period of the New Testament to find out what a puzzling passage means.  When I did my own digging, I found simply too many similarities between the ancient near eastern culture and the Genesis narrative, for it to be coincidence.  It was by no means "ad hoc".  It is a reading already steeped in the culture of that time.

 

Also, it isn't allegorizing away; "away" makes it sound dismissive....like the specific parts aren't important.  No!  They are extremely important for they are the vehicle for the central themes upon which you and I agree (and don't forget how important they would've been to the original readers/hearers of Genesis...........we are constantly forgetting that it is God's Word to them also....indeed, it was God's word to them FIRST.  a fact which I find refreshing; it makes me humble and brings me into a community that long predates me!  Which is exciting!  After all, I was grafted onto a branch not my own).

 

clb

 

Yes, if I think that is the best, most natural reading of Genesis 1, but I am not convinced it is. I'm not sure.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish.  

 

This is an odd statement.

 

I believe Genesis is about Jesus.

 

I do not believe it is about science, nor a scientific account of thing.

 

If anything, I believe trying to integrate science into Genesis 1 takes away from seeing Jesus in it.

 

Which is exactly what OEC does.  It attempts to force science as the standard by which the Bible is interpreted and trying to make the Bible agree with Evolution, the Big Bang, and trying to make the days of creation to be on epochs of time to make one's interpretation agree with what scientists claim.

[alphaparticle]

You said “I think evolution is true because it seems true based on the evidence.”

 

The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support the naturalistic models of reality (i.e. Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology) can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). Therefore, the distinction between the two positions has nothing to do with the existence or amount of evidence, but rather how one's faith presupposition influences the interpretation of the evidence; and which interpretations are preferred. So there is no legitimate, objective, scientific reason for any Christian to set aside their confidence in the reliability of the Biblical account.

 

The implication of your statement is that creationism is not supported by evidence – which demonstrates that you have not fairly considered the creationist position.

 

I am not impressed by creationist attempts, no.

 

If you are going into it with the sole goal of 'reinterpreting' evidence to make it work with Creationism, you can do that. The reason you can is because God is omnipotent, and ultimately, God could  make the evidence appear however He wanted to. But, you have to first assume that is what is going on.

 

 

 

 

 

“I do not think that God would create things so as to deceive us”

 

But there is no deception. All of the existing evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist/Biblical model of reality. It is only your perceived obligation to naturalistic science which would cause you to believe otherwise.

 

I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best. I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this.

 

 

“All of this is to say, I have not found an intrinsic contradiction between accepting the physical story behind the Big Bang and evolution, and accepting the resurrection of Jesus and the truth of the gospel. It is possible to hold to the former and have faith in the former simultaneously.”

 

The Bible promotes (to a degree) freedom of mind and will and exhorts Christians to test all things. So I agree that Christians don’t have to agree on everything. Nevertheless, I think you have failed to consider some serious logical inconsistencies between the secular scientific models and Biblical Christianity.

 

* Firstly, a metaphor is supposed to relate to something similar; an antecedent. If creation is a metaphor, it is definitely not a metaphor for evolution. There should also be some grammatical indicator pointing the reader to a metaphorical interpretation. No such indicator exists in the texts.

* Evolution at its core is not so difficult to understand. The concept of humans descending from animals is common in many native cultures. Metaphor is unnecessary.

* A common sense rule of interpretation is that the texts should be interpreted according to the grammatical style in which they are written (That is, the grammatical context). The account of origins in Genesis is written as historical account.

* Using the above measures, if creation is not true, then the ultimate author (Who we believe to be God) either didn't know what He was talking about, or He is lying. If any part of scripture is unreliable, then the scripture in its entirety must be considered unreliable. The integrity of the Bible has either been preserved by God or not. If we get to decide which verses are relevant and which verses we can reject, then we make ourselves judges over God's word. Christians are often accused of cherry picking scriptures - if we interpret Genesis as metaphor, then that is exactly what we are doing.

* The concepts of evolution and long ages do not exist in the text. It has to be read into the text from external sources. These theories, whilst popular, are scientifically unverified (and essentially unfalsifiable). They are therefore faith conclusions. Human science is fallible and must be constantly updated and revised. There is no objective scientific reason for a Christian to doubt the reliability of the Genesis account.

* Jesus interpreted Genesis as history. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors interpreted the Genesis account as history. If we accept the secular version of history, we again imply that Jesus and the other authors of scripture are ignorant. And again we call into question the divine inspiration and integrity of the whole Bible.

* The Genesis account is necessary to explain how death and suffering could originate in the creation of a "good God". God created the world corruption free. It was through our sin that corruption entered the universe. Long age theories put death and corruption before humanity. How can a loving God create such a cruel concept as evolution which thrives on suffering?

* Death before sin undermines the entire reason for the gospel of Christ - to save humanity from the consequences of our sin. If death and suffering existed before humanity, then it would be unjust of God to hold us accountable for the impact of sin on the Earth. If we are not accountable then why do we need a Saviour?

The creation account is the foundation of all Christian doctrine and philosophy.

 

I respect your right to disagree, but I am unconvinced that you have given the issue its due consideration.

I didn't say anything about metaphors, or what a good, solid reading of Genesis would be in my case.

 

Jesus used Genesis to illustrate His teachings. I don't think we can blithely assume He was using it as straightforward history, in the way we do when talking about history in history classes.

 

The integrity of the Bible is unnecessary to being a believer. I didn't have a belief in the integrity of the Bible when I came to pray to God for salvation. My belief in the Bible as a theological authority developed later.

 

The Death we need saving from is spiritual death, separation from God, and that could happen with or without physical death occurring.

[alphaparticle]

 

why I believe in Christ and evolution

 

The title it a bit misleading, based on conversations I have had with you.   You don't really believe in Jesus AND evolution.  You believe in Evolution and you accept Christ only to the extent that faith in Jesus doesn't get in the way of believing in Evolution.   As long as you can separate Jesus from Genesis, then He is okay.  As long as Jesus knows His place and you can have Him on your terms, then you are okay with Jesus.    You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish.   Your theology about Jesus is the product of your imagination, and not the product of a thoughtful and prayerful study of God's Word.  

 

This is inaccurate and unfair. It's not about 'evolution'. It's about what seems to be true to me about the world, and that is it.  I can't up and choose to believe the world is 10k years old anymore than I can up and choose to believe it was created 2 seconds ago. I don't see my belief in Jesus as Savior as competing with that or intrinsically at odds with that in any way at a fundamental level.

[alphaparticle]

what

 

You said “I think evolution is true because it seems true based on the evidence.”

 

The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support the naturalistic models of reality (i.e. Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology) can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). Therefore, the distinction between the two positions has nothing to do with the existence or amount of evidence, but rather how one's faith presupposition influences the interpretation of the evidence; and which interpretations are preferred. So there is no legitimate, objective, scientific reason for any Christian to set aside their confidence in the reliability of the Biblical account.

 

The implication of your statement is that creationism is not supported by evidence – which demonstrates that you have not fairly considered the creationist position.

 

 

“The more I have looked into the case, the stronger it seems”

 

This perspective is based more in presupposition, than in an objective consideration of the science involved. Just last year I completes a Bachelor of Science; Majoring in Biology. Even though almost all of my course material was taught from an evolutionary perspective, no evidence was provided that couldn’t otherwise be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model.

 

Historically, what we would call modern-science was originally conducted from the Biblical-theistic perspective. Then around the late 1700s, a new framework for science began to be promoted – now called naturalism (the faith paradigm which only considers natural explanations to qualify as truth). Since that time, the naturalistic perspective has become so ubiquitous in science that it is the only scientific perspective that most people ever encounter (i.e. in school, university, science documentaries etc.). This gives the logically false impression that naturalism is the only valid scientific perspective – which subsequently causes some Christians to falsely believe that they are rationally obligated to submit the authority of scripture to secular/naturalistic models.

I wonder what is the evidence that made alphparticle believe that.

 

There's nothing special about the evidence. It's the standard stuff you could find in any somewhat thorough book about evolution. Combine that with astronomy, some stuff about geology, cover radiometric dating etc.

[Guest shiloh357]

Jesus used Genesis to illustrate His teachings. I don't think we can blithely assume He was using it as straightforward history, in the way we do when talking about history in history classes.

 

Jesus didn't use Genesis as an illustration of His teachings.  Jesus referred to events in Genesis as literal historical accounts.   You are trying to assign your imaginative interpreation of Genesis to Jesus. 

 

The integrity of the Bible is unnecessary to being a believer.

 

Wrong.  it is essential because if God can't be trusted, we can't be sure if we are saved.

 

 

I didn't have a belief in the integrity of the Bible when I came to pray to God for salvation. My belief in the Bible as a theological authority developed later.

 

The only way you could believe is if you had faith that what the Bible says is true about salvation.   Faith is rooted in the integrity of God's word to say and mean exactly what it says.  To reject Genesis 1 as literal history, you are calling God a liar.

 

The Death we need saving from is spiritual death, separation from God, and that could happen with or without physical death occurring.

 

The problem is, it didn't happen without physical death and besides, you don't have the theological prowess to tell anyone what is or is not possible, theologically.  The fact is that the Bible teaches that physical death is the direct result of Adam's sin and that fact is inescapalble.   You can imagine scenarios all day long in which such a thing isn't necessary, but at the end of the day, it happened exactly the way the Bible said.  

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

why I believe in Christ and evolution

 

The title it a bit misleading, based on conversations I have had with you.   You don't really believe in Jesus AND evolution.  You believe in Evolution and you accept Christ only to the extent that faith in Jesus doesn't get in the way of believing in Evolution.   As long as you can separate Jesus from Genesis, then He is okay.  As long as Jesus knows His place and you can have Him on your terms, then you are okay with Jesus.    You can't seem to accept that Genesis is all about Jesus from start to finish.   Your theology about Jesus is the product of your imagination, and not the product of a thoughtful and prayerful study of God's Word.  

 

This is inaccurate and unfair. It's not about 'evolution'. It's about what seems to be true to me about the world, and that is it.  I can't up and choose to believe the world is 10k years old anymore than I can up and choose to believe it was created 2 seconds ago. I don't see my belief in Jesus as Savior as competing with that or intrinsically at odds with that in any way at a fundamental level.

 

You need to come to grips with reality.   You can believe what you choose to believe, but the bottom line is that you can't bring yourself to believe the Bible because you think it collides with evolution and as far as you are concerned,  scientists have more authority and than the Bible does.  

 

If you can' believe God on the most fundamental issue of "where do we come from?"  then yes your faith is a odds with evolution at the most fundamental level.