Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution?

Interpreting the Bible through the lense of science is never a good idea.



"We take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"~Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin in his review of Sagan’s Billions and Billions of Demons

 

G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, 20 September 1979.

 

John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, p. 26, Jan.–Feb. 1983.

 

Evolutionists can NOT show/prove how life originated, nor why man is a special creature, unique among ALL other creatures...

Without God, no proof/explanation for origins of both life and mankind...

Bogus science, bad theology, need to make sure purged from our Churches!

 

Creationist cannot show/prove how life originated nor why man is a special creature. It is an unprovable article of faith.

It does not matter if I believe in in the evolutionists beliefs or the beliefs of creationists or in some other theory ... all are unprovable. There are some things we that God had made unprovable for us and that is where our faith comes in.

I strongly believe that God created the universe and all life, but my belief and yours is unprovable.

Bogus science, bad theology, need to make sure purged from our Churches![/QUOTE]

If we can figure out what either really are.

 

If we can figure out what either really are.[/QUOTE]

per the Bible...

we KNOW God created all life upon the earth, each after OWN KIND, not evolved into...
We KNOW God direct created man, in His own image, and breathed a soul in Him...

So where the confusion regarding this and what evollutionists believe?

 

per the Bible...

we KNOW God created all life upon the earth, each after OWN KIND, not evolved into...
We KNOW God direct created man, in His own image, and breathed a soul in Him...

So where the confusion regarding this and what evollutionists believe?[/QUOTE]

Well, you DO know of course that the "creation account" is NOT meant to be taken LITERALLY! Genesis 1 is simply an "allegorical'' account by man to explain things that he could not possibly understand. After all the word day in Genesis 1 does NOT referr to a REAL day but to a period of time. You just have to ignore the fact that everywhere else in the Old Testament when the word day is used in conjunction with either a number, the word evening, morning or both. It is in fact referring to a literal day, (was Jonah in the whales belly 3 days or three periods of time)? Once you "understand" this, it is EASY to mix evolution with the Bible. You silly creationist, SCIENCE is what we need to use to correctly interpret the Bible. If it doesn't match with science we need to re-interpret it. We don't want to be scientifically "irrelavent". Sarcasm off.

 

Tongue in cheek or not, now you are making bad science which results in bad theology.

Science tells how God created, not why!

 

See, here I thought that the Bible told me how God created. Science (evolutionary) does its best to eliminate God from the creation process. The plain ordinary reading of Genesis 1 is that God created in 6 literal days. If we use the same interpretive approach for the word day in Genesis 1 as we do elsewhere in the Bible there is no doubt that we are dealing with 6 literal days of creation not some kind of evolutionary process (Darwinian). We err greatly when we allow science to be the yardstick for how we determine the accuracy of scripture. Which is exactly what happens when we try to adopt a compromise position on creation.

 

Says who?////

 

This would be funny if it weren't so sad. How many times has science got it wrong? Science is nothing more than man figuring out what God has done and sometimes he gets it wrong.

 

I think we need to get away from the idea that "Science" is in some way united in its underlying beliefs about origins. It isn't! Individual scientists hold varying beliefs about origins, and despite the almost universal assumption in our UK education systems and public media that the theory of evolution is proven fact (I expect the same is true in America), there are indeed some highly-qualified scientists who believe in Creation, not Evolution.

In my opinion, the Huffington Post article is totally wrong when it says that the Christian faith requires accepting Evolution.

 

I'm with you here, brother David.

 

If we can figure out what either really are.[/QUOTE]

We can figure this out when a scientist says or actually I believe it would be an anthropologist says carbon dating shows these bones to be 1 million years old we know that is based on bogus testing.
The testing method is this C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth. They start with the belief in the earth being 4.5 to 5 Billion years old and so they date these fossil findings with a bogus date, making it a bogus age. Taking the same formula C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth and using a 6000 year old we would have a tremendously younger fossil.
This has been done with some rock formation that were known to be only hundreds of years old, they knew the exact time of their formation it had been documented. Using C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth as 4.5 to 5 billion years it was determined that those rocks were millions of years old when in fact it was documented when they formed. Bogus science leads to false claims and false dating. So Darwin evolution is based on false premises and is therefore a false religion so why would we as Christians accept a false religion or it teaching.

 

We can figure this out when a scientist says or actually I believe it would be an anthropologist says carbon dating shows these bones to be 1 million years old we know that is based on bogus testing.
The testing method is this C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth. They start with the belief in the earth being 4.5 to 5 Billion years old and so they date these fossil findings with a bogus date, making it a bogus age. Taking the same formula C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth and using a 6000 year old we would have a tremendously younger fossil.
This has been done with some rock formation that were known to be only hundreds of years old, they knew the exact time of their formation it had been documented. Using C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth as 4.5 to 5 billion years it was determined that those rocks were millions of years old when in fact it was documented when they formed. Bogus science leads to false claims and false dating. So Darwin evolution is based on false premises and is therefore a false religion so why would we as Christians accept a false religion or it teaching.[/QUOTE]


I DO hold to Creationism by God for all life on earth...

Just curious though...

Do you view "Theistic Evolution" as being teneable for a Christian to hold?

 

I DO hold to Creationism by God for all life on earth...

Just curious though...

Do you view "Theistic Evolution" as being teneable for a Christian to hold?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't fit in my opinon. I wrote a paper on it for one of my college science courses I'll have to get it later to post excerpts, but in what I learned about Theistic Evolution, it would have God starting a life form and allowing it to evolve until it could evolve no more in it's formation so Godwould help it as needed until man finally formed.
Also if the earth was an old Earth as evolution and Theistic evolution believe we have some major questions to answer, such as at the sedimentation rate ofthe earth we should have oceans nearly filled up with sediment and we don't. There is also sedimentary soil on top of Mt. Everest how would it have gotten there on an older earth of course that is explained by the flood as to are the earth layers the earth broke up with the Flood. Genesis 10: 25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

With Eber we see Peleg and with Peleg we see a reference to the earth being divided, how was it divided? Was this when the continents came? The oceans, dividing the Continents, yet we are told that all this formed and the earth divide at a much later time billions of years before Eber and Pelegs time. Or was this when God seperated the nations and caused the languages to come about? These would be the earth divide not the nations divided, but it is open for either interpretation, it was shown in the science text as the continents being divided.

 

My opinion is that Evolution is an absolute myth. A comically ridiculous fairy tale.