is it possible that a person can believe in evolution

I don't feel that I MUST accept evolution, but I also don't feel that I MUST accept a six day creation. Further, I don't feel that a non-six day creation, or creation via evolution violate or compromise the scriptures, primatily because, as I already stated, I don't believe the purpose of Genesis 1 was to give us a factual account of the origin of the universe.

If animals were not carnivours before the six-day creation description of the fall of man, then they must have evolved after the fall, since most carnivours today would die a vegeterian diet (their digestive tracts aren't designed that way). Plus, the teeth of carnivours are not designed to cut through vegetation, but they are designed to cut through flesh. Unless God "changed" these animals after the fall to survive in a meat-only environment.

[ November 05, 2002, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Don't know, but I believe Genesis 1:30 "'And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food'; AND IT WAS SO." (Emphasis mine) So, it appears they were vegetarians. I choose to believe God's Word, not what "science" tells me. And by the way, I never said that you had to believe a literal six-day creation(although I DO (there you go Johnv)), I just have a problem with evolution, and the Christian compromise with the rest of the world.

[ November 05, 2002, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Oh yeah, by the way. Do you believe Jesus' death/resurrection accouts are factual or figurative? Just wondering, because "science" says that it impossible to raise from the dead after being dead for three days.

 

Alright, this is it, no more posts for me. I have strayed far enough off the path of this thread! Johnv, I was a lot like you before. But I came to a realization. I will never know everything (imagine that!). I come from an engineering background and I like to know how everything works. Ultimately, and I think you would agree, neither of us can prove our point. The creation cannot be repeated and observed, so we have to accept things on faith. I do not question that you are a Christian, but I do wonder why you choose to believe in evolution. However, I realized that there are some things I have to take on faith, and this is one of them. I think there is evidence for a young earth and that science fits better in young earth model. But I hope you realize, like me, that there are some things we just can't explain or know, at least for now.

Neal

 

And I was once like you, but I came to the realization that the scriptures are the beginning of faith, not the end.

Of course I believe Jesus ressurrected. It's a foundation of Christian faith. A six day creation is not. I'm amused that you agree that one need not believe in a six day creation (though some here on the board will disagree with that statement). So I'm allowed to not take genesis literally, but I can't take it less literally than you. Hmmm...

I do indeed agree with you that neither of us can prove the point. I'm not attempting to "prove" evolution. However, I believe it's possible that God used the evulotionary process to create, since there is fossil evidence to support the idea(which we need not go into here).

[ November 05, 2002, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

It should be noted that evolution, especially when it speaks of origins, is not a science at all. It is a faith. Evolution contradicts many well known laws of science. Consider first what science is. Science is knowledge: knowledge that is gained by observation, and then sorted and classified. In order to have true science one must have an observer. It is the art of observing and recording, and then analyzing your data. Who was there to observe the origin of the universe? That has an obvious answer. If man was not there, could not be there, has no way to observe the origin, then it is not science he is dealing with, it is faith. Faith deals with that which we cannot see. We walk by faith and not by sight. Science deals with the seen and the observable.

In origins evolution teaches a “big bang theory.”
In true science, the law of biogenesis says that life can only come from life. Life can never come from inanimate matter. Evolution goes against its own scientific laws.

The first law of Thermodynamics: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This is what the Bible teaches. Within six days God created everything. Creation then ceased. After that time matter can only be changed from one form to another, and energy can be released. Matter is not created. Evolution says that matter is created, by the very definition that we are evolving and the universe is evolving.

The second law of Thermodyamics says that there is an ever increasing amount of entropy in the universe, or all things tend toward degeneration. How true that is! My body just isn’t the same as it was 20 years ago. My car doesn’t run as well as the day I bought it, nor does it look as good. My computer is now being repaired--it does not run as efficiently as it did when I first purchased it. Everything tends to degenerate in this world. Things do not get better and better as the evolutionist says. Things are getting worse and worse, just as the Bible says it is.

Another law: Order never arises out of chaos. (Yet this is precisely what the Big Bang teaches)
Smash a watch on the cement sidewalk? Will it come together by itself into a perfectly working watch again? That is what evolution teaches. It teaches that out of a tremendous explosion came forth perfectly ordered solar systems, galaxies, and the earth itself. It takes a great amount of faith to believe in such a fairy tale. That is not science. It may be scientism--a religion, but it is not science. It is not observable. It is not factual. If evolution were true why do we not see it going on today? Where are all the missing links? The half-apes and half-men? There should be just as many of those “missing links” running around the world today as there are humans, if evolution were true. Fact is, evolutions are still hunting in vain to find their first one. They can’t because it doesn’t exist. God created the first man and woman, in the sixth day of creation between 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is much easier to accept God’s Word by faith, then man’s fairy-tale by faith. After all, God was there to observe what He was doing.
DHK

 

It should be noted that evolution, especially when it speaks of origins, is not a science at all.
Again, an arguement that's better taken up in the creation/evolution forum.

It is a faith.
That's a misconception that many anti-evolution folks espouse, but I disagree.

Evolution contradicts many well known laws of science.
Again, a misconception that many anti-evolution folks espouse, better taken up in the creation/evolution forum.

Science is knowledge: knowledge that is gained by observation, and then sorted and classified. In order to have true science one must have an observer.
Observation is one of the scientific methods, but not the only. Again, better taken up in the creation/evolution forum.

 

If you folks will allow me for a bit, as a past moderator of years of creation/evolution forums, as a science editor, as an active member of both the Creation Research Society and the Intelligent Design movement, as a past evolutionist and current creationist...

First, there are different types of evolution. The kind of evolution that produces species is well known. A species is just an isolated breeding group which, because of the consistent inbreeding, ends up with markings or minor behaviors which distinguish it from 'sister' population groups. Hummingbirds are so precise that even though they can tell the difference between their different species, sometimes we can't unless we are quite well-trained hummingbird watchers! Dogs, on the other hand, even looking so different from one another, are all one species because they are all willing (if not always able, due to size) to breed with one another. Nevertheless, the type of change like this is a sort of 'horizontal' change -- a branching out change -- that is defined as evolution.

The evolution most people are fighting about is not this, however, but rather involves the enormous genetic and body changes which must occur to change a bacteria to a bear through time.

Can a Christian be this type of evolutionist? They may start out that way, as we all start out from different spots on our Spirit-led journey to the final truth in Christ, but I honestly don't think a born-again Christian can continue as an evolutionist.

Here is why: A born again Christian is going to be hungry for the Word of God -- his spiritual food. In reading it, the Holy Spirit is going to guide the Christian in his understanding of what is being said as Bible interprets Bible and as the Holy Spirit works in the person's heart to increase understanding. Because the Bible is extraordinarily clear about certain facts of creation, the person will find him or herself being more and more pulled away from the explanations of current science where they disagree with the Bible, and closer and closer to the Bible itself.

For me, in my field, it has been an exciting thing to see that the actual data really do support exactly what the Bible has been saying all along. I have found that God's work in nature and His Word in the Bible do not disagree: He has presented consistent and agreeing witnesses to creation.

So when I see a 'theistic evolutionist' I am always hoping I am simply seeing a very young Christian who will end up growing out of the ideas which are trying to combine world and Bible in such a way that the Bible is mangled in the process.

There is a thread on theistic evolution going on in the creation/evolution forum right now and I recommend that those interested in this thread at least read it. Back on page one or two, quite early on, there is another thread on theistic evolution which is quite interesting.

Hope that helps a little, anyway.

edit: the faith, by the way, that is involved in evolution is actually secular humanism: that humans can define and discover the truth themselves. That's not biblical either. One must choose -- humans or God where believing the truth is concerned...

Science has changed ideas so many times in the past, we really do need to look at it with a bit of skepticism when it declares something as absolutely true and it declares evolution to be! Good science does not make those statement. Good science indicates where the evidence seems to be leading and allows for discussion and disagreement.

[ November 05, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

That methodist minister is apparently lost. Because the Bible in the first chapter teaches against evolution. I think a real Christian could not believe teachings he does. Surely the Holy Ghost would bear witness. Evolution is against the Bible. Evolutionists are against the Bible. It is a crazy idea a saved person believing in evolution when it is so clearly against Scripture. I wonder about those who can reconcile evolution and the Bible. And abortion and sodomites are all right? What a lie! Surely how stirring the testimmony no real Christian would be fooled by such.

 

Wow! I am so glad that this topic exists.

I have been saved for over 6 years now and I used to believe in evolution. Can one be a Christian and believe in evolution. I think "yes" because some people have been decieved into believing that evolution is fact. As they get more into the word of God, they will realize that evolution cannot co-exist with the Bible.

I am currently taking a class call "scientific origins". I have learned a lot in this class on the subject of evolution. I never realized that there was so much evidence against evolution!

I don't have time to post all of the examples, but I would glad to e-mail any of you the papers I have had to write. Just send me a private message and let me know if you might like some of the papers.

[ November 09, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: try hard ]

 

Is it possible that a person can believe in evolution and still be a Christian?

Norm: To deny the vast support of evolutionary theory will likely reflect poorly on one's credibility among reasoned individuals. Goodness, folks, time to leave the Scopes Trial behind; the Christian faith has more important issues to address than propogating antiquated and non-scientific positions opposing the general acceptance of evolutionary theory. Generally, except among some of the most religiously conservative and uneducated, the Scoopes mentality is a legacy of the past that most have moved beyond. If, however, some wish to believe in a literalist interpretation of creation and deny evolutionary theory and its empirical findings, that is fine with me, I can still fellowship and serve with such individuals. Such individuals, when in power, are likely to enact processes which would preclude those who differ from serving with them, however, if we have learned anything from some Baptist circles over the past several decades.

 

Rev. G:
Your understanding of science is woefully inadequate. Evolution in no way violates any law of thermodynamics. Also, you seem to imply that evolution's status as a theory makes it somewhat dubious as a fact. This is a result of a misunderstanding on your part of what a scientific theory actually is. Every scientific discovery is explained through some theory; eg. "Theory of Relativity" "Germ Theory."

It's rediculous to believe that the entire scientific community would treat evolution as fact when there is little or no substantiating evidence for it. I believe the bible, but I also believe you have to call them as you see them. God created man via the process of evolution.

 

Any proof for evolution anyone???? I do believe that Rev. G was correct in his assesment, what about 2nd law of thermo? And to say uneducated people dispute evolution, well, is rather ignorant (lack of knowledge, not meant to be an attack). And to call evolution a theory is being pretty generous...........

 

The problem, Norm, is that there simply is no 'vast support' for evoltuion in any field. A vast amount of interpretations of data, but that is all they are. And the evidence coming in from genetics especially denies evolution is possible at all.

 

Rev. G:
Your understanding of science is woefully inadequate. Evolution in no way violates any law of thermodynamics. Also, you seem to imply that evolution's status as a theory makes it somewhat dubious as a fact. This is a result of a misunderstanding on your part of what a scientific theory actually is. Every scientific discovery is explained through some theory; eg. "Theory of Relativity" "Germ Theory."

It's rediculous to believe that the entire scientific community would treat evolution as fact when there is little or no substantiating evidence for it. I believe the bible, but I also believe you have to call them as you see them. God created man via the process of evolution.</font>[/QUOTE]Please, sir, check the "Theistic Evolution Reviewed" thread down on the evolution/creation board for some responses to some of what you have stated here. And also, as a short response to the thermodynamics question, it is VERY correct to say the theory of evolution violates the generalized law of entropy although the 2LOT (second law of thermodynamics) is not actually relevant as it has to do with closed systems and the earth is not a closed system.

But allow me, at any rate, to quote you a little from P.W. Atkins' The Second Law; Energy, Chaos, and Form, from the Scientific American Library, 1994. I'll post page numbers before the quotes. By the way, he spends the entire second half of the book trying to show how evolution could happen anyway, but that aside, here:

p. 9 -- The Second Law recognizes that there is a fundamental dissymmetry in Nature: the rest of this book is focused on that dissymmetry, and so we shall say little of it here. All around us, though, are aspects of the dissymmetry: hot objects cool, but cool objects do not spontaneously become hot; a bouncing ball comes to rest, but a stationary ball does not spontaneously begin to bounce....although the total quantity of energy must be conserved in any process (which is their revised version of what Carnot had taken to be the conservation of the quantity of caloric), the distribution of energy changes in an irreversible manner. The Second Law is concerned with the natural dierection of change of the distribution of energy, something that is quite independent of its total quantity.

=====

p. 38 -- The entropy, therefore, labels the manner in which the energy is stored: if it is stored at a high temperature, then its entropy is relatively low, and its quality is high. On the other hand, if the same amount of energy is stored at a low temperature, then the entropy of that energy is high, and its quality is low.
Just as the increasing entropy of the universe is the signpost of natural change and corresponds to energy being stored at ever-lower temperatures, so we can say that the natural direction of change is the one that causes the quality of energy to decline: the natural processes of the world are manifestations of this corruption of quality.

=======

p. 57 -- Simply by accepting that jostling atoms pass on their energy at random, we have accounted for one class of phenomena in the world. In fact, this identification of the chaotic dispersal of energy as the purposeless motivation of change is the pivot of the rest of the book. The Second Law is the recognition by external observers of the consequences of this purposeless tendency of energy.

=====

pp 62-63 -- We have to interpret the dispersal of energy to include not only its spatial dispersal over the atoms of the universe, but the destruction of coherence too. Then "energy tends to disperse" captures the foundations of the Second Law.
The natural tendency of energy to disperse -- that is, to spread through space, to spread the particles that are storing it, and to lose the coherence with which the particles are storing it -- establishes the direction of natural events.
...Natural processes are those that accompany the dispersal of energy.

...As energy collapses into chaos, the events of the world move forward...Entropy must then be a measure of chaos.



Houston, we have a problem...



[ November 10, 2002, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

All living creatures manage a local decrease in entropy. This is not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because entropy is allowed to increase even more so elsewhere. The living creature pushes off the increase in entropy into the environment and all is well with 2Lot. Hence, no problem for life OR for evolution! We've also learned to push off entropy into the environment; it happens every time we save data to the hard drive or run our refrigerators.

 

Rev. G:
Your understanding of science is woefully inadequate. Evolution in no way violates any law of thermodynamics. Also, you seem to imply that evolution's status as a theory makes it somewhat dubious as a fact. This is a result of a misunderstanding on your part of what a scientific theory actually is. Every scientific discovery is explained through some theory; eg. "Theory of Relativity" "Germ Theory."

It's rediculous to believe that the entire scientific community would treat evolution as fact when there is little or no substantiating evidence for it. I believe the bible, but I also believe you have to call them as you see them. God created man via the process of evolution.</font>[/QUOTE]Please, sir, check the "Theistic Evolution Reviewed" thread down on the evolution/creation board for some responses to some of what you have stated here. And also, as a short response to the thermodynamics question, it is VERY correct to say the theory of evolution violates the generalized law of entropy although the 2LOT (second law of thermodynamics) is not actually relevant as it has to do with closed systems and the earth is not a closed system.

But allow me, at any rate, to quote you a little from P.W. Atkins' The Second Law; Energy, Chaos, and Form, from the Scientific American Library, 1994. I'll post page numbers before the quotes. By the way, he spends the entire second half of the book trying to show how evolution could happen anyway, but that aside, here:

p. 9 -- The Second Law recognizes that there is a fundamental dissymmetry in Nature: the rest of this book is focused on that dissymmetry, and so we shall say little of it here. All around us, though, are aspects of the dissymmetry: hot objects cool, but cool objects do not spontaneously become hot; a bouncing ball comes to rest, but a stationary ball does not spontaneously begin to bounce....although the total quantity of energy must be conserved in any process (which is their revised version of what Carnot had taken to be the conservation of the quantity of caloric), the distribution of energy changes in an irreversible manner. The Second Law is concerned with the natural dierection of change of the distribution of energy, something that is quite independent of its total quantity.

=====

p. 38 -- The entropy, therefore, labels the manner in which the energy is stored: if it is stored at a high temperature, then its entropy is relatively low, and its quality is high. On the other hand, if the same amount of energy is stored at a low temperature, then the entropy of that energy is high, and its quality is low.
Just as the increasing entropy of the universe is the signpost of natural change and corresponds to energy being stored at ever-lower temperatures, so we can say that the natural direction of change is the one that causes the quality of energy to decline: the natural processes of the world are manifestations of this corruption of quality.

=======

p. 57 -- Simply by accepting that jostling atoms pass on their energy at random, we have accounted for one class of phenomena in the world. In fact, this identification of the chaotic dispersal of energy as the purposeless motivation of change is the pivot of the rest of the book. The Second Law is the recognition by external observers of the consequences of this purposeless tendency of energy.

=====

pp 62-63 -- We have to interpret the dispersal of energy to include not only its spatial dispersal over the atoms of the universe, but the destruction of coherence too. Then "energy tends to disperse" captures the foundations of the Second Law.
The natural tendency of energy to disperse -- that is, to spread through space, to spread the particles that are storing it, and to lose the coherence with which the particles are storing it -- establishes the direction of natural events.
...Natural processes are those that accompany the dispersal of energy.

...As energy collapses into chaos, the events of the world move forward...Entropy must then be a measure of chaos.



Houston, we have a problem...

</font>[/QUOTE]I'll play your game. Please explain in your own words how the theory of evolution defies any law of thermodynamics. Before doing this however, I suggest you consider the fact that evolution does indeed occur. You may claim that evolution is limited to "microevolution," but that does not change the fact that at least one form of evolution occurs. Therefore, if you are correct in stating that evolution defies a some law of thermodynamics (you are not), that law is incorrect, not evolution.

As a sidenote, why do you think the scientific community accepts evolution? I see only several possibilities:

1) They are stupid.
2) They are in a conspiracy to destroy religion

Which do you believe, or do you think there is some other reason I haven't listed here?

 

This discussion has evolved from the original question of "Can a person believe......?" to an actual debate between the various views of evolution vs strict creationism.

I am, therefore, moving the thread to the appropriate forum.

Thanks to everyone for remaining quite civil in the discussion.

Cheers,

Jim,

Moderator