Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

[Jim1999]

Many brilliant theolgians, including the Baptist, A.H. Strong, was a theistic evolutionist. So, it is not easy to just write them off as so many here have done.

We do not deny God, Christ or even the plenary verbal inspiration of scripture.

If it must be known, Darwin was in conflict with the church from his very beginning, so none of us are making excuses that Darwin embraced faith.

The Bible is not a history text, it is the story of redemption and deals particularly with Israel, the tribes and later the establishment of the church. It does not include all of history and there are missing links, for which we depend on profane history to fill in the blanks.

Evolution has taken many forms over the years and one cannot give a blanket statement about it.

Theistic evolutionists do not deny creation at the hand of God, but neither do they deny that there is mnore to scientific history than is capsulated in the Bible as we know it.

One example is the term adam, which was generic for humankind for the first few chapters of Genesis and took on the name Adam in the 5th chapter.

How many fundamentalist believers developed the so-called gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 in an attempt to explain the various creations not listed in scripture? They too had doubts about literal creation in an instant and hence recorded in biblical history, and this included the famous fundamentalist, C.I. Scofield!

My point is simply to ask that you not write off all those who embrace a form of evolution to explain scientific history so simply. Some of us are dedicated believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and have spent a lifetime preaching His truth of salvation and holy living.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

 

[Born_in_Crewe]

Hi Jim :wavey:

Without wanting to take the thread off topic, are you the poster formerly known as Standingfirminchrist? If not, you are a dead ringer for him :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed, Jim (who isn't SFIC). I think this is a Pond difference in that you won't find many Christians in the UK - well, not in England at least - who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism in the form that seems to be advocated here, but we are aware that something like 40% of Americans (IIRC) believe in it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So God worked for 6 eons, and rested during the 7th eon, then the creation could not be used to support the sabbath day of rest, unless mna owrks 6 eons and rests durting the 7th.
See, scripturally it makes no sense. Context, complete context of all of scripture.

What does the number 7 represent in scripture (wholeness or completness of God's working)? So the 6 days of creation coud be a representation of an outline rather than a scientific look at creation. The first day and night is differentiated by light and darkness. Yet we find that sun and the moon were not created yet.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. (stars still not created yet BTW)And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day (Still no stars or heavenly bodies)And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day (ahhh stars sun and moon finally)

The 24 hour time period is necissarily dependent on the revolution of the earth which at that point was only raw material and formless. A day on Mars is 24 hours and 37 minutes and a Year is 680 days. So by necessity this time measurement based on the movement of heavenly bodies. So this measurement can not be applied to creation since by it's own account the heavenly bodies were not created. It makes for sence to say the first 3 days indicate creation on a general basis or in three periods the next 3 days indicate what was created and increation culminating with man kind since that is the object of the story and when these periods were completed God rested from all his work a completion of all activity on Gods part including rest.

 

[Jon-Marc]

The problem is, how do you explain the fact that most scientists (including Christian scientists) believe that the Earth is millions of years old. While it is possible that God could have made the Earth look older than it is, and fossil remains older than they are, I just don't see why he would. It is dishonest and Jesus says he is ''the way, the truth and the life''.

Perhaps it's the scientists who are flawed in their aging process. I read about the carbon 14 process being used on a LIVING creature. It showed that the LIVING creature had been DEAD for 3,000 years! Talk about flawed!

 

[just-want-peace]

It would have been dishonest if he hadn't told us what he did...

But he tells us in Gen. 1.
The problem is, people don't want to believe what God told us.

Emphasis mine

BINGO!!

Pure & simple this statement sums it all up. Nothing more than a variation on that old question "Did God REALLY say---?"

So much simpler and easier to just believe what God actually said than trying to second guess Him just 'cause some don't want to believe Him.

You really create a problem when you start trying to say what God "meant" when He is so specific; after all where do you stop??? Really dangerous move!!!!!!

 

[Chessic]

Seems to me God had to artificially age the word; I'd think a 10,000 year old earth would still be covered with lava and have no plant life and no breathable air. God could artificially age the Earth if it was created in a raw state with a mere word. This isn't dishonesty, it's necessary. And this could be included in the Genesis creation account. The word or words translated "made" do not, to my knowledge, discount the possibility.

Also, even if the above belief is incorrect, saying God "made it look older" is a bit more skeptical than "artificially aging." We don't know God's motives and his ways are beyond us, so I advise we avoid concluding he is dishonest if this or that, therefore it can't be true.

 

[Marcia]

The first day and night is differentiated by light and darkness. Yet we find that sun and the moon were not created yet. The 24 hour time period is necissarily dependent on the revolution of the earth which at that point was only raw material and formless. A day on Mars is 24 hours and 37 minutes and a Year is 680 days. So by necessity this time measurement based on the movement of heavenly bodies. So this measurement can not be applied to creation since by it's own account the heavenly bodies were not created. It makes for sence to say the first 3 days indicate creation on a general basis or in three periods the next 3 days indicate what was created and increation culminating with man kind since that is the object of the story and when these periods were completed God rested from all his work a completion of all activity on Gods part including rest.

Since God carefully says, "so the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5), "so the evening and the morning were the second day" (v. 8) and so on in verses 13, 19, 23, and 31, I think we are to take this as a typical earth day of 24 hours.

The significance of the moon and sun being created on the 4th day shows us that:
1) God creates light and darkness - it is not dependent on the sun or its movements

2) The sun and moon were being worshipped as gods then and God was putting them in their place. In fact, the words "sun" and "moon" are not even used, saying instead "the two great lights" and "the greater light" and the "lesser light."

With God knowing that this account was the very first part of our Bible, I do not think He would so carefully give us the idea that these were regular days (using the terms "morning and evening") unless they weren't. After all, the people who first got this information around Moses' time would have had no inkling that these days could be ages or long periods of time. They would have assumed a "day" meant a day.

 

[Whowillgo]

Funnily enough, the talk at our church on Sunday evening was looking at different explantions for the beginning of the world and the speaker was a church member who works as a scientist, explaining why Evolution through God is credible and why he doesn't believe in some of the literal creationist theories. One problem he pointed out with Young Earth Creationism is that the Earth appears to scientists (whether believers or non-believers) to be very old and therefore unlikely to be only around 10,000 years old.

Therefore, if God has deliberately made the Earth look much older than it actually is, then he is dishonest and that is not the God (or the Jesus) we encounter in the Bible. You could make the argument if that you believe God is dishonest then how can you trust the rest of the Bible? This is not to say that Adam & Eve did not exist, it just means the period of creation could have lasted longer than a literal six days with one rest day. Six days in God's time could be very different from six days in our time. Plus (an additional thought from a friend): if God has no beginning, then that means there was an infinite, un-measurable amount of time between God's existence and the creation of Adam - therefore an infinite amount of time for the process of Evolution to take place.

He did print some detailed notes on the topic, so if one wishes, I can get a copy off him and put some of his points on here.

Strange, we had a scientist at our church Sunday night who detailed why a literal belief in 6 day creation was the only explanation possible.

 

[Whowillgo]

Did you know that the same word that means day in genesis also means Eon?

True my friend but in context how many times is it used to mean eon ?

 

[Whowillgo]

It is possible though that God could have put the seventh day of rest in, to encourage people to take a rest once every seven days, and also to encourage worship for that seventh day. If God is outside of human time, then it is difficult to define 'six days' in God's time.

Not hard to define at all if Scripture is inspired by God. Then He has defined it for us. Evening and morning.

 

[donnA]

After all, the people who first got this information around Moses' time would have had no inkling that these days could be ages or long periods of time. They would have assumed a "day" meant a day

When we interpet the bibe, we must look at what it meant to the writer to the first peoples reading it. What did Moses think the evening and morning meant, did he understand it to mean eons, or a day? We can not change the menaing of scripture based on science.

 

[donnA]

Why would we let men come along and cause us to doubt God. It means our faith isn't that strong or deep, and we'd better pray nothing more then men's words ever happen to us,we'd give up on God completely if following and believeing Him were to cost us something. People, including christians simply can not put faith in God and beleive Him, they actually have to find it necessary to call God a liar by doubting what He has written in His book.

 

[just-want-peace]

"It's possible that God----", "If God----", "Maybe God----", "Perhaps God----", "What God really meant ---".

These are all conditions that are acceptable when discussing a topic that God has not spoken to, BUT totally irrelevant, maybe even sacrilegious, when discussing something that God has specifically addressed.

If, and this is a big IF, you are trusting God for your salvation and the rules of your life, then why do you trust man's version of creation over His; man was not there, God was!!!

(Maybe God meant something other than "WHOSOEVER WILL--"!?!?)

 

[Matt Black]

No-one doubts what God wrote in His book. But some of us doubt a particular interpretation of it given to us by Man and demonstrated to be at odds with what God has also revealed to us in His creation.

 

[Revmitchell]

No-one doubts what God wrote in His book. But some of us doubt a particular interpretation of it given to us by Man and demonstrated to be at odds with what God has also revealed to us in His creation.

What is found in creation is itself an interpretation and merely a theory. Evolution is not nor can it be proven. We should interpret creation by the Word not visa versa.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"It's possible that God----", "If God----", "Maybe God----", "Perhaps God----", "What God really meant ---".

These are all conditions that are acceptable when discussing a topic that God has not spoken to, BUT totally irrelevant, maybe even sacrilegious, when discussing something that God has specifically addressed.

If, and this is a big IF, you are trusting God for your salvation and the rules of your life, then why do you trust man's version of creation over His; man was not there, God was!!!

(Maybe God meant something other than "WHOSOEVER WILL--"!?!?)

Btw these are the very statements the reformers used.

 

[Matt Black]

Nevertheless it is a theory for which there is much evidence and I see no contradiction between it and the Word of God. It is also the historical position held by Christians throughout most of Church history.

[eta - reply to Rev Mitchell]

 

[donnA]

Faith means not needing evidence, means there is no evidence, it means beleiving with no proof. We either have faith in God and His word or we don't. One can not claim faith in God if one is willing to doubt God in favor of man. God spoke it clearly, He created, and He spoke that creation into being, he told us this. You simply do not beleive Him.

 

[Matt Black]

Wrong. I believe Him. I just don't believe you. Big difference.