Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
" If someone showed up at my house, I could speculate on how they got there but without an actual observation I could never say "This is the way they got here."

True. But if that person was there at the door and a car was in the driveway still running with its left front door open you might be justified in saying it seems likely that he drove there.

If your wife hypothesized that he parachuted in she could say that you don't have proof otherwise. But forensically your theory that he drove would seem more likely.

Charles, I too disagree. As a private investigator, I OFTEN find that the obvious answer is most likely to be the wrong answer. Same thing with engineering.

 

[UTEOTW]

UT, you are obviously intelligent. Surely you cannot believe that a subjective statement like this is valid.

A theory "falls out of the data". That violates the very definition of "theory".

What scientific defintion of "theory" are you using?

The Oxford Dictionary defines a theory as a "system of ideas explaining something, especially one based on general principles independent of the facts, phenomena, etc. to be explained." Its examples are atomic theory, the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution.

And that is close to a scientific theory. It should explain a wide number of facts in the best known matter and be well supported by those facts. Evolution is a theory that does a very good job of explaining what we see. That is the reason it came to prominence in the first place. It does the best job.

I do think that it is time to honor Mike's request and let the thread return to his topic.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Phillip:
As a private investigator, I OFTEN find that the obvious answer is most likely to be the wrong answer.

The general rule is that, all things being equal, the simplest or most obvious answer is likely to be the correct solution. However, as in Phillip's line of work, often times, not all things are equal. When inequality exists, it is often the least simplest or least obvious solution that is the correct solution.

 

[Phillip]

Good point Johnv,

This also fits along with the theory that most aircraft accidents are caused by two or more coincidental occurrances.

In other words, one failure rarely causes an accident, two coincidental failures usually cause the accident.

This is the reason airlines can fly thousands of flights each day and large aircraft accidents are actually VERY rare.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />UT, you are obviously intelligent. Surely you cannot believe that a subjective statement like this is valid.

A theory "falls out of the data". That violates the very definition of "theory".

What scientific defintion of "theory" are you using?</font>[/QUOTE] Pretty much the same one you quoted.

The Oxford Dictionary defines a theory as a "system of ideas explaining something, especially one based on general principles independent of the facts, phenomena, etc. to be explained."

Yes. It is a "system" thought up by someone. The "system" is then used to predict outcomes and adjusted as necessary. It doesn't just "fall out of the data".

As I mentioned, there is overlap between evolution and other theories of origins that work. Then there are things that don't work or else are not observed or else are plausible but not certain. Abiogenesis doesn't work. Macroevolution is not observed. The geologic column and its evolution's theory for its cause are plausible but not the only possible explanation.

Its examples are atomic theory, the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution.

The previous two have a clear cause and effect. The last one attempts to explain the effects without citing a prime cause.

Further, the two theories work when applied to do more than explain what is thought to occur. Real results can be generated by application of the theory.

Evolution works to explain what is observed only. It has no practical application that could not easily be replaced by ID.

Evolution is a theory that does a very good job of explaining what we see.

It is not the only theory for explaining what we see however and I argue that it is not the one that is most reasonable.

That is the reason it came to prominence in the first place. It does the best job.

That's laughable. That is akin to saying that the flat earth dogma became prominent because it did the best job of explaining what was seen.

They both became prominent largely because to reject them was to alienate yourself from intelligent scholarship.

 

[Scott J]

Can an evolutionist be saved?

I go about half way with where I think Mike was headed.

I don't think someone has a proper view of scripture or a sufficient fear of God if they explain away scripture because it doesn't agree with the interpretations of secular science.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

Remember that the Christian evolutionist may be as reverent of the word as you are, trying in earnest to show himself approved and trying to find the interpretation that is most correct.

Because someone does not agree with the traditional view does not mean he does not hold God's word in any esteem.

Anyone (not talking to YOU) who could say that a belief in evolution precludes salvation has a very warped understanding of soteriology.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Now my questions:

Is evolution ultimately based on a scientific or philosophical premise?

Isn't the strict naturalistic premise underlying evolution contrary to the supernatural God revealed in scripture?

If evolution were proven untrue, would science cease to exist? Would we no longer be able to study genetics or build nuclear reactors?

Scott J

I am not the one you asked but I will try to answer three of your four questions. I will have to take a pass on the 1st

2. Is evolution ultimately based on a scientific or philosophical premise?

Evolution is based on a philosophical premise. There is no true scientific basis.


3. Isn't the strict naturalistic premise underlying evolution contrary to the supernatural God revealed in scripture?

YES!

4. If evolution were proven untrue, would science cease to exist? Would we no longer be able to study genetics or build nuclear reactors?

Since the concept of evolution is not true science its demise would have no affect on science. A little review of the history of science will show that some of the greatest advances in science preceded the religion of evolution as practiced today.

Now I have two question the 1st perhaps most properly addressed by the moderators.

1. Why is evolution being discussed on a Baptist Theology Forum since evolution is an atheistic philosophy?

I don't know whether the very vocal proponents of evolution on this particular topic are "true believers" or not but they have stirred a hornets nest and seem determined to keep it going. It is extermely unlikely that any minds will be changed.

2. Which is more credible

a] faith that an omnipotent God created ex nihilo the universe, all living things, and a man and a woman at a specific time and place; or
b] faith that ‘an unknown process’ produced from nothing the universe and then over a period of hundreds of millions of years all living species and by chance a human male and female at the same time and same place?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Remember that the Christian evolutionist may be as reverent of the word as you are,

Charles, in the most humble way I know how, I disagree.

The Word for me trumps all else especially an uproven, unprovable theory.

I simply have not seen any reason that God would have used the specific wording of Genesis 1 when communicating the creation account to Moses if He weren't describing an actual historical event.

I find a no greater requirement for faith to believe the creation account than to believe the resurrection account. Normal natural law doesn't allow for things to appear ex nihilo nor for dead men to come back to life.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

Still - you're making a bit of a straw man out of the Christian evolutionist.

He is neither one who believes in an ex nihilo creation nor one who refuses to believe the word.

You said YOU cannot find a reason to doubt the God would have intended Genesis 1 to be nonliteral. I can find several.

And as I said YOU cannot know what is in another man's heart. An evolutionist may well have as much respect for the word as you!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:


You said YOU cannot find a reason to doubt the God would have intended Genesis 1 to be nonliteral. I can find several.

Should have said scriptural reason.

And as I said YOU cannot know what is in another man's heart.

Didn't claim to... I can only see what is in their words and deeds. God's Word says one thing, an atheistic theory says another and they favor the atheistic theory.

An evolutionist may well have as much respect for the word as you!

Not if they believe what they espouse. Not if they believe the twisting and distortion necessary to make the Bible fit evolution is acceptable.

I am not attempting to compare myself with someone else but rather compare two viewpoints.

 

[manchester]

There isn't one theory of evolution. There are many, including Darwin's theory (natural selection). That is apart from the fact of evolution, that life evolved from lower life forms. Even if Darwin's theory were to be modified in some way, or even go away, it wouldn't change the fact of evolution.

 

[manchester]

All of these arguments have been addressed. You really need to read the articles at Talk Origins if you want to know the truth about the evolutionists and their "beliefs":

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by manchester:
Even if Darwin's theory were to be modified in some way, or even go away, it wouldn't change the fact of evolution.

Evolution is not a fact!!!! In fact it does not meet the requirements for a scientific theory since there is no corroborating evidence of evolution and thus the theory is at best a hypothesis.

Actually evolution is gross speculation whose sole purpose is, not to understand the natural world, but to eliminate God from the conscious thought of man and any belief in his accountability before his Creator

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by manchester:
There isn't one theory of evolution. There are many, including Darwin's theory (natural selection). That is apart from the fact of evolution, that life evolved from lower life forms. Even if Darwin's theory were to be modified in some way, or even go away, it wouldn't change the fact of evolution.

FACT?...... FACT?

If you are tlking about microevolution okay. Evolution to another species is a "theory", even to the evolutionist. That statement is "bad science" whether or not you are an evolutionist.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by manchester:
Even if Darwin's theory were to be modified in some way, or even go away, it wouldn't change the fact of evolution.

Evolution is not a fact!!!! In fact it does not meet the requirements for a scientific theory since there is no corroborating evidence of evolution and thus the theory is at best a hypothesis.

Actually evolution is gross speculation whose sole purpose is, not to understand the natural world, but to eliminate God from the conscious thought of man and any belief in his accountability before his Creator </font>[/QUOTE]AMEN BROTHER, PREACH ON!

Bottom line, yes, a person can become a Christian, but they will not grow very much in Christ if they do not accept the Bible as written. Once you accept a hypothesis which describes actions in a natural environment with no supernatural creation, then you do away with God, AND you do away with the Bible. Then you start doing away with the Virgin Birth and Jesus' resurrection. If creation isn't supernatural, why would the gospels be supernatural?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Anyone (not talking to YOU) who could say that a belief in evolution precludes salvation has a very warped understanding of soteriology.

Amen!

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by manchester:
All of these arguments have been addressed. You really need to read the articles at Talk Origins if you want to know the truth about the evolutionists and their "beliefs".

No, you need to read my book "Impossible Theology: The Christian Evolutionist Dilemma":

www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/impossible_theology.htm

The main text disproves evolution theologically, and the appendices disprove it scientifically.

Mike

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Mike, some people have come to the conclusion that the "proofs" against evolution always turn out to be a mishmash of bad reasoning and bad interpretation of evidence.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Mike, some people have come to the conclusion that the "proofs" against evolution always turn out to be a mishmash of bad reasoning and bad interpretation of evidence.

Let them try it with the scientific Appendices in my Impossible Theology. I would be interested to hear what they have to say.

Mike