Most mainline Christian denominations have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins... If this is a true statement within the Christian community then where does this place the six days of creation spoken in the book of Genesis?... Was there a literal six day creation as the scriptures state their were and just because we can't understand it does that make it not so?... Millions and millions of years does not make six days... According to those who believe in Scientific Creationism we have a young earth but Evolutionist say not true this earth we inhabit is millions if not billions of years old... If that is true we can also speculate that Adam and Eve lived millions and millions of years until they sinned as the Bible as far as I know is silent on the time that elapsed until they did... And man that they claimed evolved from some primordial soup so devolved when ate of the forbidden fruit that God told them not to eat of and died... Not only did he die but plunged by his disobedience all of Gods creation also into death... Everything created has a design and purpose as the God who created it and the laws that govern it which he also set in place... To me the concept of Evolution is I understand Evolution is at odds with those who believe in Scientific Creation as I feel the Bible teaches but how do we explain the opening sentence if this is true?... Most mainline Christian denominations have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins,,, Is this true with you?... Brother Glen
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Scientific Creationism?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
Kevin
Active Member
Would these be the same christian denominations that find homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, women preachers...etc in the Bible?
If it is, then they have already proven they don't care what the Bible says. There are a lot of things we don't fully understand in the Gods Word, that is what faith is for. We don't need to use human/secular reasoning to dismiss God, and His Word, so we can treat man as god.
dad1
Member
Does this mean they do not believe Jesus created the world?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
First of all, the expression “Scientific Creationism” is a misnomer because there is nothing scientific about it. None of the 24 or 25 men and women who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who advocate for young earth creationism did their doctoral studies in an area related to young earth creationism, and, therefore, they are far from qualified to have an opinion on the subject. Moreover, their arguments are not based upon scientific research because none of them are employed by an institution that has the money to finance a laboratory and the equipment that is required for any kind of real research. Neither do any of them have an education in the exegesis of the Old Testament or even a basic knowledge of the Hebrew Language, and consequently they believe in an old Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that the Roman Catholic Church and the mainline Christian denominations abandoned decades ago in view of Old Testament research that has incontrovertibly proven the old Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is fatally flawed. Furthermore, none of that Old Testament research has given us findings that are inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
More adhominem and not much else.
I think that the OP may mean that their concept of sin with its repercussions and salvation with its Christ (among other things) can only be allegorical or illogically held.
No, brother. It proves the exact opposite. There are some who interpret Scripture to their biases - on bot sides of the issues. Some do not see where Scripture speaks of those issues simply because they don't want to see. Others see where Scripture speaks of those issues only because they are looking for a justification of their ideologies. But there are some of these denominations who genuinely try to determine what Scripture prescribes, and regardless as to the correctness of their conclusions they "care" about what the Bible says.
dad1
Member
False. To look at evidences and use different starting assumptions is as much science as what is called science today. I could for example use the same research on any topic, say, for example, the continental drift. I could conclude it was a sudden movement responsible rather than the slow drift that science prefers to accept. They have a world view, a philosophy, a set of beliefs and a way of interpreting evidences. Their method is godless, and cultishly narrow.
As for PHD in any of the two bit fields that involve origins issues, that is about as valuable as a slogan on toilet paper wrap.
dad1
Member
Yes, if I had a nickel for every time I herd that foolishness.
You and me both. In today's culture secular reasoning too often trumps Scripture. Many who hold to evolution fail to even recognize, much less address those issues. It gives light to processing to be wise they have become fools, doesn't it.
Sent from my TARDIS
dad1
Member
Good for you. Of course I think when you use the word evolution, you are thinking of the Darwinian pond nonsense. I personally do not mind evolution any more, because I simply think of it as something that is a created ability or trait. I think that we could evolve/adapt fast in the former nature also.
I also don't mind evolution, although as it is "unproven" theory I think it should remain a theoretical term. Likewise, the revelation of Genesis 1 should remain exactly that, divine revelation to be accepted but not necessarily a "science" needing to be proven. I also agree that we adapt (I think that this is evident not only in the physical sciences, but psychologically as well), but even if there were a proof of an organism evolving I would have to subject that "knowledge" to what has been revealed of God.
There is a leap between adaptation and evolution, and there is a great leap between the theoretical evolution of an organism in general and the hypothesis that men have evolved, and there is an even greater leap between evolution accepted as a theory and evolution accepted as fact. To hold evolution as fact is a denial of both science and Scripture.
dad1
Member
Well, I can take it or leave it as a fact. If evolving happened, it only happened to created kinds. Now if some fish developed legs to help get around on the migration away from the sea at Eden, fine with me. If some bird lost the power of flight, and got big and fat, and turned into a dinosaur, in adapting to areas of the world, fine with me too. If creatures changed a lot to evolve and adapt to the new nature, fine with me. Evolution as I see it is no threat to Genesis 1. The threat comes when people deny creation, and Genesis and try to use evolving as the source of life.
I don't focus so much on the topic except when it comes to the point of denying a literal Adam as created in God's image and his transgression introducing sin through which death entered into the world. Personally, I find evolution difficult to reconcile with a world not subject to futility and not seeing death. But I don't hold others as dependent on my own logic.
dad1
Member
That is fine. I have focused somewhat however, because I have heard the claims from science and wanted to see what was true. I find it would not be a strong position to deny evolution generally, and totally. The problem is that they attribute far too much to evolving, because they have rejected the truth of God.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Having been raised and educated in the scientific community, and still being surrounded by it today as a conservative, evangelical pastor and teacher of the Scriptures, I am familiar with science and the thinking of scientists—and I have never met a scientist who, as a scientist, has “rejected the truth of God.” This is due to the incontrovertible fact that science is concerned with science, and it is NOT concerned with religion. Individual scientists may have religious views, but these views are entirely separate from their science.
There are, however, some religious people who, because of their religious beliefs, abuse science to make it falsely appear that science confirms their religious beliefs. That, however, is not science—it is the abuse of science. Evidence from science should be used to evaluate views of science; evidence from the Bible should be used to evaluate views of religion. However, that which is true is true, and that which is false is false—regardless of the source of the concept.
Conservative?
dad1
Member
Part of the truth of God as given in Scripture is that Jesus created it all. That is rejected by science, and I don't care if you are a banker or a pastor, it is what it is.
No idea who they are. I do know science is a set of religious beliefs and methods, that many nominal believers have chosen to swallow.
Whatever it is you are trying to say, why not spit it out?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I am a rock-solid conservative evangelical Christian, and no amount of insults from Mitchell will ever change that. I am not, however, a radicalized Christian fundamentalist who chooses, without any biblical evidence whatsoever, what parts of the Bible God intended to be interpreted as an accurate account of historical events, and which parts He did not.Conservative?
If Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, the earth was a flat disc covered by a dome that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome (Gen. 1:7). Furthermore, if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, nearly all of the water that brought about the Genesis flood came from above the dome. Moreover, if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, after the end of the hundred and fifty days the flood waters returned (שׁוּב) from off the earth; and if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, the only place the waters had to go was back above the dome! On the basis of these facts from the Bible, I choose to believe that what is described in Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate account of historical events.
I agree. Whether right or wrong, I think that there are two ways Christians allow their worldview to be shaped (in terms of this debate). Either it is shaped primarily by Scripture or it is shaped primarily by science (neither will view the other as an "equal partner", and rightly so).
Science does not offer evolution as fact, so the best that one can do is to advocate or dismiss the hypothesis. The problem comes in when some do mistake the theory as fact, or dismiss it under false pretense.