Can someone be a "saved" Christian and give merit to evoluti

[Oh Hamburgers!]

HE.. pleeeeasse don't make this thread turn into another "darwinism" thread... I swear there have been like 10 of them

Evolution and Darwinism are NOT the same things, although I admit they have similar roots.

It's not worth creating another of the same discussions in here, in my opinion.

[Scarletprayers]

Thanks for the article on Dawkins, horizons!

[apothanein kerdos]

How can they make the jump that evolution disproves the existence of God?

If Naturalistic Evolution is true, then at best, there is no need for God.

It does nothing of the sort. Some economists during the industrial revolution used it to justify greed and now morality is somehow tied to it? And theology?

How were they wrong?

Naturalistic Evolution, the accepted form of evolution that is, does remove any form of morality. There is no justification for morality under Naturalistic Evolution.

instead of attacking this HUGE fallacy and leap of logic implored by these atheists who are dead wrong.

It isn't a huge leap when Christians grant certain things. When we allow for the belief in random mutations actually causing good, punctuated equilibrium, or natural selection as a progressive form of science in every case of biological evolution, then we remove the need for God.

can you tell me the major (or minor) difference(s) between Darwinism and evolution?

That's easy - Darwinism is synonymous with Naturalism. Both are going to teach that evolution shows a lack of a need for a God. That life exists, that the earth is positioned ever so slightly in the right way, that some life did appear simply out of no where (Cambrian Explosion), that modern man, likewise, appeared out of no where 40,000 years ago, are all considered fortuitous.

Evolution, removed from any interpretation, will teach us that some species have evolved from a common ancestor (such as a horse and a donkey) and that most life has evolved from a single cell (hence why all DNA is similar). However, it will also show that these changes occur drastically and, as far as the fossil record is concerned, without warning or over time. This has led to the belief in punctuated equilibrium, which teaches these evolutionary changes occur as Darwin predicted, just over a short period of time. This, of course, is merely a theory without any evidence.

Intelligent Evolution - this teaches that the world is billions of years old, that evolution among species has occurred, but special creation has occurred as well. There is evidence, such as the bacterial flagellum or the Cambrian explosion, that some biological matter has a sudden beginning, as if created out of nothing. The believer in this theory, however, will accept that it occurred millions of years ago and has no problem denying a 6,000 year old Earth.

[systemstrike_7]

What a bunch of crap!!!

How can they make the jump that evolution disproves the existence of God? It does nothing of the sort. Some economists during the industrial revolution used it to justify greed and now morality is somehow tied to it? And theology?

So these atheists make the assumption since evolution is true - there is no God. Some christians go along with this too.

If evolution is true - God doesn't exist- therefore we must attack evolution - instead of attacking this HUGE fallacy and leap of logic implored by these atheists who are dead wrong.

What seems to go way over the heads of most

[Tubal-Cain]

If someone gives merit to what science has to say when it comes to evolution are they lost?

No.

If not, why would Christians choose to fight about this issue when the issue of salvation through Christ is our main goal? Why take the risk of losing your chance to help someone find the path to salvation?

I can't be sure as I am not one of them, but perhaps they answer yes to the first question. I would hope they at least mention that other Christians have no problem with evolution.

Do some Christians choose to protect the wrong message?

I doubt there are many Christians who purposefully protect the wrong message. They believe they are protecting the truth. At some point though we have to realize we can sincerely disagree.

Are there majors and minors when it comes to the Christian message?

I would say so. I'm generally willing to accept anyone as a brother/sister in Christ if they believe in one God (YHWH), that Jesus is the Christ and bodily rose from the dead, and if they act ethically towards their fellow creatures. Though there is vast disagreement over creation/evolution I don't think it should split up any body of believers. Just agree to disagree.

[Tubal-Cain]

If Naturalistic Evolution is true, then at best, there is no need for God.

I don't think even that is true. One might say that God is needed to explain the existence of the universe and the beginning of life. Since evolution does not explain the existence of the universe or how life began it does not remove the so-called need for God.

Naturalistic Evolution, the accepted form of evolution that is, does remove any form of morality. There is no justification for morality under Naturalistic Evolution.

This is false. Morality could succinctly be described as a set of rules that are meant to make society function at its best. Accepting evolution in no way inhibits one from reasoning about what rules would make society function best.

It isn't a huge leap when Christians grant certain things. When we allow for the belief in random mutations actually causing good, punctuated equilibrium, or natural selection as a progressive form of science in every case of biological evolution, then we remove the need for God.

See above. Also, I don't think Christians should base their faith in God on believing that God is necessary to explain certain gaps in our knowledge. In other words, don't believe in God merely because you can't explain everything scientifically. History has shown that those gaps in our knowledge can be filled. I don't think spreading Christianity through a god-of-the-gaps type argument is the way to go because it leads to people with weak faith who will leave the faith when the gaps are filled.

[apothanein kerdos]

I don't think even that is true. One might say that God is needed to explain the existence of the universe and the beginning of life. Since evolution does not explain the existence of the universe or how life began it does not remove the so-called need for God.

It most certainly attempts to explain the metaphysics of cosmology.

Darwin didn't, but neo-Darwinism certainly tries.

This is false. Morality could succinctly be described as a set of rules that are meant to make society function at its best. Accepting evolution in no way inhibits one from reasoning about what rules would make society function best.

Nice try, but it falls flat on its face. If Naturalistic Evolution is true, there is no need for morality. Even saying, "it's to preserve society" or " to make society function" violates the idea of naturalism - those things are moralistic declarations.

See above. Also, I don't think Christians should base their faith in God on believing that God is necessary to explain certain gaps in our knowledge. In other words, don't believe in God merely because you can't explain everything scientifically. History has shown that those gaps in our knowledge can be filled. I don't think spreading Christianity through a god-of-the-gaps type argument is the way to go because it leads to people with weak faith who will leave the faith when the gaps are filled.

If all of life can be explained without the need for God, then there is no God.

[Tubal-Cain]

AK, I might not know what you mean by "naturalistic evolution". When I responded to you, I took it to mean a belief that science can explain how evolution occurred without resorting to supernatural entities. With that in mind I saw no reason to think that that rules out that God might be needed to explain how the first lifeform came into existence or that God is needed to explain why the universe exists. I separated "naturalistic evolution" from naturalism. I agree with you that if we could explain (literally) everything in the universe (past, present, future) in naturalistic terms then we would rule out the Christian god's existence (but not a deistic god).

Regarding morality, your post merely made assertions but I find nothing there I can agree with. Naturalism is compatible with the existence of human desires to live in a functioning society and taking actions to bring that about. Desires are part of nature. Human actions are part of nature. What actions fulfill desires can also be determined in a naturalistic fashion. Where's the problem?

[CSLewis]

AK- Just because some people think there is no need for God doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Dawkins is an arrogant fool who gives evolution a bad name. Having Dawkins as the spokesperson for evolution is like having certain tv evangelists being the spokesperson for Christianity.

Charles Darwin believed in God and was an Anglican.

Survival of the fittest explains seemingly cruel acts in nature - but it cannot justify immoral actions by man.

That is all I have to say about this -

I am a Darwinian evolutionist and a "born again" christian.

And I can use reason and history and science to defend both views.

2 Timothy 2:14-26

[Tubal-Cain]

Let me see if I understand the