why I believe in Christ and evolution

[Spock]

Blessings Alpha,

    Now I would have to agree that you may be on to something-LOL    we only see in part now anyway....there are so many mysteries of God that i am sure will astound us soon enough! Glory to God!

                                                                                                With love in Christ-Kwik

That's one of my favorite verses from my favorite book in the Bible. Actually I've been trying to relax about all this a bit with some confidence God will take me where I need to go.

Hi again alpha,

I was wondering how your first full day would go for you on this thread, and it looks like it went pretty well. I don't see the ugliness or piling on that I thought might show up, so for that I am glad. Of course you have kwik popping in bringing her calmness and graciousness to the thread. That helps.

I just have one thought-don't let anyone tell you if you are in the family of God or not. That really is not their call, your salvation, it is Gods call exclusively.

It also sounds to me that you might not be interpreting Genesis the way some people here interpret it, and that too, is subjective. As you can see, some believers believe in a young earth and some believe in an old earth. If someone tries to tell you you are not a true believer because you believe in an old earth or evolution, don't even bother to answer them. Let them believe what they want; you won't convince them anyways.

I hope you are getting what you hoped for by starting this thread.

Your brother in Christ,

Spock

[alphaparticle]

 

 

Blessings Alpha,

    Now I would have to agree that you may be on to something-LOL    we only see in part now anyway....there are so many mysteries of God that i am sure will astound us soon enough! Glory to God!

                                                                                                With love in Christ-Kwik

That's one of my favorite verses from my favorite book in the Bible. Actually I've been trying to relax about all this a bit with some confidence God will take me where I need to go.

Hi again alpha,

I was wondering how your first full day would go for you on this thread, and it looks like it went pretty well. I don't see the ugliness or piling on that I thought might show up, so for that I am glad. Of course you have kwik popping in bringing her calmness and graciousness to the thread. That helps.

I just have one thought-don't let anyone tell you if you are in the family of God or not. That really is not their call, your salvation, it is Gods call exclusively.

It also sounds to me that you might not be interpreting Genesis the way some people here interpret it, and that too, is subjective. As you can see, some believers believe in a young earth and some believe in an old earth. If someone tries to tell you you are not a true believer because you believe in an old earth or evolution, don't even bother to answer them. Let them believe what they want; you won't convince them anyways.

I hope you are getting what you hoped for by starting this thread.

Your brother in Christ,

Spock

 

I get you. This sort of thing used to bother me now, but ultimately, if I have faith and believe at all I really believe it's because God has granted that to me. on my own, I am terrible at faith.

 

I see this issue as a real stumbling block for some people, and I suppose that's why I felt a need to post this thread. It would be a bummer if people looking at this subforum come away thinking it's impossible to believe in Jesus and accept the prevalent scientific models. If communicating about that means I expose myself to unpopularity here, that's fine.

 

Thanks for your encouragement, and I agree, kwik rocks.

[Tristen]

 

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.

 

 

You said “I am not impressed by creationist attempts, no.”

 

Your being “impressed” is irrelevant to whether or not our arguments are rationally justifiable – especially as you have demonstrated bias in your perspective.

 

 

“If you are going into it with the sole goal of 'reinterpreting' evidence to make it work with Creationism, you can do that.”

 

Yes I can – meaning that the available evidence is consistent with the creationist model (based on the Biblical account of history), and that the model is therefore scientifically valid (or at least as valid as the secular models which employ the logically identical methodology).

 

If facts spoke for themselves, scientists would always agree on the conclusions. Scientific consensus is rare because in reality, facts don’t speak for themselves – they have to be interpreted. No interpretation occurs in a vacuum. Interpretation is a subjective process – highly dependent upon the faith presupposition of the interpreter (as all humans have a preferred faith version of reality). You prefer the secular models which were formulated within the logical framework of the naturalistic faith paradigm. I prefer the creationist model which is formulated within the logical framework of the Biblical-theistic faith paradigm. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that science conducted from one unverifiable faith perspective is more valid than science conducted in the other.

 

I understand that position. I was brought up in a secular household and didn’t even know that such a thing as creationists existed until after I converted to Christianity and was forced to consider the inconsistencies between my secular education and the clear teaching of scripture. I understand what it’s like to think that only the ignorant religious crazies would deny what I considered scientists to have “proven”. But on subsequent investigation, I discovered that the confidence commonly attributed to secular models is vastly exaggerated; beyond what is scientifically justified (or even scientifically possible). The worlds confidence in secular models is therefore based as much on faith as the creationist model. I found that there is no logical or scientific reason to obligate myself to the secular models. Most people do obligate themselves to the secular models because they are the only models most people have ever had the opportunity to consider. But the preference is based on faith rather than science.

 

The point is – because science requires scientists to interpret the evidence, and because scientists are humans with preferred faith presuppositions, all science is necessarily conducted within the framework of one faith perspective or another. And therefore all evidence is interpreted to be consistent with the preferred paradigm of the interpreter. That is, all scientists have to “first assume” something about “what is going on”. All interpretation requires context.

 

 

“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."

 

Now all you need to do is support that claim with rational argument. Otherwise it's just innuendo.

 

 

"I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this.”

 

I previously provided an answer to this question in which I demonstrated the highly speculative nature of all models dealing with the unobserved past (including the secular Standard Cosmology model). But that’s not the impression given by the secular scientific community. Nevertheless, the scientific method explicitly permits us to think for ourselves.

 

 

 

“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.”

 

There is a lot of unjustified innuendo (i.e. logically fallacious arguments) in this statement. Given that the creationist claim is that all of the evidence can be, both individually and collectively, interpreted to be consistent with Biblical creationism, the claim is meaningless until you can demonstrate that a particular fact can only/exclusively be interpreted to support secular models over the creationist model.

 

Throughout my degree I studied many biology textbooks, all of which went to (often unnecessary) lengths to emphasise the secular models. I have no issue with the evidence, or even that it can be interpreted to be consistent with secular models. I consider all (secular and creationist models) to be scientifically valid. The secular community unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly and exclusively prefers the secular models. But that preference is not based on any demonstrated logical or scientific superiority.

 

 

“I didn't say anything about metaphors”

 

The default implication of your position is that the Genesis text should not be regarded as historical. If you don’t take a passage to be historical, then you are taking it in some sense symbolically. The same arguments apply whether metaphor, analogy or lyrical prose.

 

 

“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.”

 

Why not? Besides a predetermined adherence to secular science, how do you justify departing from the obvious message contained in the text itself? Jesus used Genesis as the historical antecedent for His message (e.g. for marriage). If it’s not based on historical reality, then the message itself becomes meaningless (i.e. if based on something considered not to have happened).

 

 

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

 

The Divine Inspiration of Scripture is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. I agree that it is not necessary for salvation; however as the source of the gospel itself, trust in the Bible speaks to the logical consistency of an individual’s faith confession.

 

 

“My belief in the Bible as a theological authority developed later.”

 

Which is the reason you posted this topic: – because you perceive that there are inconsistencies between your scientific education, and the most obvious rendering of Genesis. Rather than question the basis of secular science, you have preferred to perform mental gymnastics in an attempt to make the Bible conform to the secular scientific paradigm. My position is that you have done so unnecessarily. The Bible is eminently more trustworthy than any human pursuit.

[nebula]

I see this issue as a real stumbling block for some people, and I suppose that's why I felt a need to post this thread. It would be a bummer if people looking at this subforum come away thinking it's impossible to believe in Jesus and accept the prevalent scientific models. If communicating about that means I expose myself to unpopularity here, that's fine.

 

Yeah, I can appreciate that.

 

One of the best quotes I heard, though I can't remember the exact words, points out how the "truth" (translation: the religious dogma we are certain in) keeps us from the Truth (Jesus). Truth is not a thing, nor a belief, nor a conviction; Truth is a Person. And that is what we need to see, and that is what we need to preach.

[ARGOSY]

I don't know, I was, for a couple months, really unsure what to do with the Bible. I read it and eventually the Spirit started speaking to me through the words, so I got a sense that yes, aside from some reasons for taking it seriously I had formed I had these experiences also that let me know something was different here. But- that I got after having believed in Jesus. That's my only point here.

 

Exactly, so your faith in Christ and your belief in the core gospel message are unwavering because you have experienced fellowship with God.  So even if you disagree on some minor doctrinal issues, and take scientific conclusions literally and a few bible verses symbolically this does not affect your core belief system.  I really don't see a problem with that.  I do prefer a literal approach to the bible though.

 

I do have a problem with your scientific beliefs though, lol!

Edited January 28, 2014 by ARGOSY

[Spock]

I don't know, I was, for a couple months, really unsure what to do with the Bible. I read it and eventually the Spirit started speaking to me through the words, so I got a sense that yes, aside from some reasons for taking it seriously I had formed I had these experiences also that let me know something was different here. But- that I got after having believed in Jesus. That's my only point here.

 

Exactly, so your faith in Christ and your belief in the core gospel message are unwavering because you have experienced fellowship with God.  So even if you disagree on some minor doctrinal issues, and take scientific conclusions literally and a few bible verses symbolically this does not affect your core belief system.  I really don't see a problem with that.  I do prefer a literal approach to the bible though.

 

I do have a problem with your scientific beliefs though, lol!

I do not believe God intended Genesis to be a complete statement on the origins of the universe like some do here. In fact, doesn't the word say we know practically nothing compared to what we will know in Heaven?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth......... Dateless past, speculate all you want, but leave it at that.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I don't know, I was, for a couple months, really unsure what to do with the Bible. I read it and eventually the Spirit started speaking to me through the words, so I got a sense that yes, aside from some reasons for taking it seriously I had formed I had these experiences also that let me know something was different here. But- that I got after having believed in Jesus. That's my only point here.

 

Exactly, so your faith in Christ and your belief in the core gospel message are unwavering because you have experienced fellowship with God.  So even if you disagree on some minor doctrinal issues, and take scientific conclusions literally and a few bible verses symbolically this does not affect your core belief system.  I really don't see a problem with that.  I do prefer a literal approach to the bible though.

 

I do have a problem with your scientific beliefs though, lol!

I do not believe God intended Genesis to be a complete statement on the origins of the universe like some do here. In fact, doesn't the word say we know practically nothing compared to what we will know in Heaven?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth......... Dateless past, speculate all you want, but leave it at that.

 

He gave us enough light to be able to know that Evolution and OEC are both a farce.   It is an imcomplete record to be sure, but it is complete enough to know deception and lies when they are presented.

[Enoch2021]

 

 I am not in the young earth brigade

 

 

Now that is a good one LOL.  Now I'm a YEB 

 

I'm curious why your not a YEB?

[Reason2014]

I would like your input on this...I agree that evolution is evident as you can see from viruses and bacteria developing resistance and becoming different strains. However, the evidence for evolution in mega scale---such as from paramecium to eventually, say a dog, seem flimsy.

 

If someone can calculate this, I would appreciate it. Perhaps it's illogical question...What would be the probability of a single celled organism's DNA to undergo random addition, deletion, etc to eventually have DNA of a dog? How long would that take? And then accounting for natural selection, how long could it take?

[Enoch2021]

I would like your input on this...I agree that evolution is evident as you can see from viruses and bacteria developing resistance and becoming different strains. However, the evidence for evolution in mega scale---such as from paramecium to eventually, say a dog, seem flimsy.

 

If someone can calculate this, I would appreciate it. Perhaps it's illogical question...What would be the probability of a single celled organism's DNA to undergo random addition, deletion, etc to eventually have DNA of a dog? How long would that take? And then accounting for natural selection, how long could it take?

 

"I agree that evolution is evident as you can see from viruses and bacteria developing resistance and becoming different strains."

 

That's not evolution...the darwinian type anyway.  You have to define Evolution First.  If it means the generic definition of "change" well ok, but that's so general EVERYTHING can be evolution.

 

Bacterial resistance is not evolution in the darwinian sense.  Bacterial resistance as a result of Mutations are ALL Loss of Information.

 

"On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics."

Dr. Lee Spetner; Not by Chance, 31 December 1997

 

 

‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of an existing genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess.'

Palumbi, S.R., Evolution—humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force, Science 293:1786–1790, 2001; p. 1787.

 

"Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.

Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990

 

'Bacteria can become resistant as a result of mutations, but all of those studied so far are loss mutations. Probably the classic example is streptomycin and other mycin drugs that have been rendered ineffective by ribosome point mutations.'

Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226–233, 1971.

Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203–234, 1972.

 

 

"evidence for evolution in mega scale---such as from paramecium to eventually, say a dog, seem flimsy."

 

More like NON-EXISTENT.  It's a Ludicrous postulate Genetically, speaking.  You need NEW INFORMATION.  It's tantamount to getting an 18 Wheel Mack Truck from a Unicycle....it's not in the Instruction Manual (DNA)

 

This equation is the only way....

 

Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of Years = darwinan or "Macro" evolution   ....and that's putting it lightly:

 

 

For neo darwinian evolution you need millions of beneficial mutations over thousands of generations that also need to become fixated in the mean time overwhelming all the deleterious ones. You need NEW INFORMATION----- leading to unequivocal New Traits, Organs, and Organisms!

 

‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

 

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

 

Really......

 

'The authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage.'

Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007

 

 

'Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it.'

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.168

 

'This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.'  

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8

 

 

Ernst Mayr  Professor of Zoology at Harvard University....

 

'The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.' 

Ernst Mayr: Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

 

"What would be the probability of a single celled organism's DNA to undergo random addition, deletion, etc to eventually have DNA of a dog? How long would that take?"

 

Never, and Time is the Enemy of darwinian evolution.