Creation Vs Evolution As World Views

John,

To conclude that evolution occurred in no way implies ignorance of God's word. I have read Genesis multiple times. I am not ignorant of what it says. I have taken Genesis seriously. I also look at the natural world. And having done all this, I conclude that evolution describes the origin of present-day organisms.

Evolution is not a tree. Evolution is science. If you are to criticize any philosophy or tree, you must criticize the scientific method itself. And science has produced so many useful things that improve our lives that I don't think you will get very far criticizing science as a whole. So you pick on parts of science, elect to call these parts "a philosophy," "a canard," and "a Satanic lie," and explain how only evil has come of the belief and how all purity and good has come of your world view.

Let us look at the evil practices you associate with evolution: Abortion, drug culture, Promiscuity, Pornography, Genocide, Euthanasia, Chauvism, New-Agism, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Satanism, Witchcraft, etc…

How many of these practices were around before Darwin even propounded evolutionary ideas? Let's see. Ancient Rome had laws against abortion. I have heard that "sorcery" criticized in the Bible refers to drug use. So...that would be something found in the Word of God (and criticized there) which pre-dates evolution entirely. Witchcraft also is mentioned in the Bible. Nothing in the theory of evolution mentions any of these horrible practices. In fact, abortion is not a practice which is conducive to the survival of one's own genes, so voluntary abortion would not be expected of a "fit" person any more than infanticide.

John, you repeatedly say that Scripture does not mention the use of evolution to create. I agree...Scripture doesn't mention evolution. But I think you also concede that Scripture doesn't precisely describe how God created our teeth, our brains, our skulls, and our hands.

Evolution is science. Scientists recognize it as science. And sciences from both biological and non-biological disciplines would by majority clearly agree that evolution is science. The doctrine is falsifiable by observation of the natural world. Its falsifiability makes it science.

I do not deny that some people will try to make science into a philosophy or perhaps even a religion. I am reminded of this cult that thought space aliens were going to come take them when a certain comet appeared. That isn't science. It is no more the necessary conclusion of science than the Crusades are a necessary conclusion of Christianity.

 

Whoa there...timeout!

How about we define some terms for the thread before we proceed?

I know that when I say evolution as a general term I am using the one that was used in my high school text books: evolution = broad term meaning life and life forms were created from simple celled organisms that eventually mutated and formed more complex living systems. ...yada yada yada...monkeys evolved into humans.

Now evolution, in most scientific journals and publications, refers to mutations and changes to a species (think of that moth example you all probably know so well).

The whole primordial-goo-to-humans thing is now called abiogenesis.

So, who is talking about what?

jason

 

You were close there Jason.

The study of evolution is primarily the study of variation, close enough to what you said to work on. But it also includes the "primordial-goo-to-humans thing."

Abiogenesis is a seperate topic, as you pointed out, but it is really only how the "goo" got there. Once you get the "goo," evolution can take over.

Primarily, I think everyone here is talking about common descent (to use a different phrase ) when speaking of evolution. But other things pop in. The young earthers like to lump most of science in under the umbrella of evolution so as they criticize evolution they will also go after astronomy, geology, paleontology, physics, biology, genetics, chemistry, physiology, racism, and anything else they can think of. The old earthers will sometimes spend energy pointing out the differences in the fields, and how they often come to the same conclusion through totally different approaches as an indication that they might be right, but will also delve into some of the same topics listed above to show that the earth and the universe are old.

That is my impression of what people are talking about. If I misrepresented anyone, jump in and correct me. If you have the stomach, I'll invite you to join in. We always love another viewpoint. We are all Christians here and we usually behave ourselves, but I must admit I get a sense that nerves are a little frayed on both sides right now. But no ones jumping out and just slandering each other, so that's good. We had a case several months aago where one poster ran around doubting the salvation of everyone who disagreed with him. This raised the ire of even the people who agreed with him and we really have not gotten into personal attacks since then.

 

In the goo-to-you fairytale the mythical part where goo goest to single celled life form capable of replicating WITHOUT requiring a higher life form to replicate IN - is abiogenesis. Abiotic generation of life --- it is the new way of saying "spontaneous generation" for the Neuvo alchemists we call "evolutionists".

As you point out - variation within the strict bounds of a species (any change in eye color, haire color, size variant for example) is sometimes erroneously called "evolution" in order to gain "some credibility" for the fairytale. Variation WITHIN the strick boundaries of a kind is what Creationism predicts so calling that "evolution" is simply an attempt to misdirect and hide bad science under good data.

Macro evolution is the "salient point" of the evolutionists mythology. That is "the missing link" for them. This is where variation occurs such that NEW genetic information is infused and these new additions aggregate to the point of a trans-species leap UP a level of taxonomy.

It is pure mythology. But has Huxley said - its purpose is "clear" - it is to explain the origin of man apart from God and thus free man from the gospel - from the moral boundaries God places on mankind.

As Dawkins notes - God is superfluous once you accept evilution.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Macro evolution is the "salient point" of the evolutionists mythology. That is "the missing link" for them. This is where variation occurs such that NEW genetic information is infused and these new additions aggregate to the point of a trans-species leap UP a level of taxonomy."

What would you consider "new information?" In the past I have given you references till I am blue in the face of new traits, metabolic pathways, etc. being observered evolving. Are these not observations? Are new traits not new information? If they are not new information, but you can get new traits without new information, then what does that do to your argument?

"Every Pagan idol worshipping culture in the OT and NT as well as today, believed in some sort of evolution of man."

An assertion without evidence. The Vikings, for instance, believed that Odin created the first man from ash tree and the first woman from an elm tree. No evolution there. I guess not "every."

"Finally someone bold enough to admit that evolution isn’t mentioned in the Bible, which further cements the fact that man has more of an influence over you than God’s Word."

I can go for admissions. I don't think it is clearly in there either. (There is the whole waters bringing forth life part.) But I do not think the Bible was meant to be a book of science either. I have no problem mixing the two and find it the only intellectually honest way to do it. To do otherwise is to deny a huge body of knowledge for no reason than your own interpretation.

"but AS IT IS WRITTEN, I believe it all on faith, regardless of what popular opinion may say."

But you do not always take things simply as they or written. What do you do about Jesus being able to see the whole world just because he was on a high mountain while being tempted? What do you do about that tree in Daniel that can be seen in the whole earth? What about where the earth is described as a flat, round disk in Job? What about Joshua causing the sun to stand still? You too use outside knowledge to reinterpret from the plain reading when it suits you.

 

It is against the rules of science to turn to scripture to defend science.

Science finds out what truth it can - truth about the physical world - by what means it can - using physical means of investigation.

I feel very sorry for those who say the world is one way and science found out it is another. This should bring them to question the ways they decided what the world was like and perhaps revise them.

It won't change the way the world is to blame the folks who found it is billions of years old for being prejudiced against the way you interpret the Bible.

If your Bible interpretation method gives you the wrong answer in the things that science has proven to be true, how can you trust it to give you the right answer anywhere else?

 

And who made up these 'rules of science'?

Men.

Who are constantly changing their minds about things. In fact, it was not so long ago that western science was the child of the Christian faith! Talk about teenage rebellion!

"what truth it can....by what means it can". You are right in that. Science is extremely limited. Rules or not.

If there are any errors to be made, I think most of us would rather err on the side of believing God instead of man, Paul. I feel very sorry for those who depend on man and man's science, which says one thing one day and then something completely different not long after. "This should bring them to question the ways they decided what the world was like and perhaps revise them."

In the long run, it is a matter of
1. believing God
2. looking at the data without long-ages OR short-ages presuppositions and without evolutionary bias.

When you can do those two things, you will find you are living in a very young universe.

Even though science is today saying otherwise.

 

The modern Theory of Evolution is based on Darwin's false Nineteenth Century racial concepts of multiple and diverse Human species.

No Human races or species = No Evolution!

 

"No, it’s called using a little common sense and asking the Holy Spirit to guide you in truth and not LOOKING for difficulties like a skeptic."

I do not look for difficulties. They only become difficulties when you insist on taking such things as literal. Then you have to go against your insistance on taking it as it is written, but only when it suits you.

"but then again Mount Hermon located in Israel is some 9,200 ft. tall and some 3,000 feet above sea level. Pretty tall mountain huh, wonder how far could Jesus see? Persia? Assyria? Greece?"

Well let's see.

1.32 * (9200)^0.5 = 126.6 miles.

So you could see 130 miles form there. Not quite the whole earth. But the plain reading of the text says that He could see the whole world merely from being so high. Not a problem for me unless I adhere to your rule of always taking things literally and as written even if I know that cannot be the way it is.

"Are you talking about the vision or dream of Nebuchadnezzar?"

What is the fact that it was a vision got to do with it. The author obviously thought that if a tree were high enough that it could be seen across the whole world. Thats what the plain reading indicates.

"Job 38:13 got cha confused"

Nope. Talking about the circle of the world thing. You know, a round, flat disk.

"Do you call your local weather station and harp on their weather man for using Phenomenal language? "

Nope, but I don't insist that things should be interpreted as they are written and literally except when it suits me to do otherwise while condemning others for doing the same thing.

 

And who made up these 'rules of science'?

Men.
</font>[/QUOTE]And who made up the interpretations of scripture that deny the findings of science?

Men.

If a body NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND ABOUT ANYTHING then by definition he NEVER LEARNS ANYTHING!

"It is the glory of science to progress - " C. S. Lewis

"what truth it can....by what means it can". You are right in that. Science is extremely limited. Rules or not.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and science has given us computers, cars, bountiful crops, easy world travel, rockets to the moon, the ability to discuss issues from world wide locations together, views of the universe from billions of light years distant, and the ability to discern a very interesting past for our earth.

If there are any errors to be made, I think most of us would rather err on the side of believing God instead of man, Paul. I feel very sorry for those who depend on man and man's science, which says one thing one day and then something completely different not long after.
</font>[/QUOTE]You have to depend on your human ability to understand and interpret what God says to you. That human ability is just as prone to error in religious matters as in all other matters.

Why haven't the Calvanists and the Armenians come to a common conclusion years ago? They continue to beat their seperate drums on this very board, both quoting Bible Verses in sufficient quantity to show anybody they must be right, and they disagree. How can that be?

Hmmmm. MAYBE OUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR . . . .

The scientific method, acknowledging as it does that men are fallible and can make mistakes, puts out the findings and conclusions for all to see; shows everybody how the findings and conclusions were arrived at; invites everybody to attempt to repeat or refute as they are able; and by these means we have some very impressive achievements.

If I say that I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, I am not saying I disagree with God. I am only saying I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.

I count the findings of science as evidence against your interpretation of the Bible, not as evidence against God.

 

UTEOTW:

You of all people are so shortsighted. When Jesus talked to the woman at the well in John chapter 4. Note in verses 16-18. Now how would Jesus know that this woman had 5 husbands and that the one she was presently living with wasn't her husband? Build me another mountain! Jesus is God. Satan is the cherub who was placed in charge of the earth. This take no brains, it ONLY involves alittle faith. And FAITH IS what your salvation hinges on. You want to make everything NATURAL! WELL IT AIN'T! It involves the SUPERNATURAL. The SUPERNATURAL supersedes the NATURAL! That IS why Jesus could calm the storm, that is why Jesus could see people's past, present, and futures (He KNEW what would happen to Judas). Be a CHRISTAIN and not a skeptic. There is NOTHING wrong with searching and researching but sometimes one HAS to MAKE A STAND!
You will NEVER mature as a Christian if you are only going to accept what you think you see! That is what Jesus was telling Thomas.

 

I am not being skeptical. I am pointing out that the plain text, read literally, says that He could see the whole earth just by being up on that high mountain. I do not make the same insistance on interpretation that you do, so I have no problem with the verse. But you are already telling me things that are not contained within the plain reading of the text to try and understand it. If you can do it where it suits you, why do you condemn me for the same?

 

You have to read the ENTIRE Bible. You have to allow the Holy Spirit to give you insight to what GOD is saying throughout the ENTIRE Bible and not just the parts YOU feel are literal. I Must say that I have NO problem understanding that Satan showed Jesus all the existing people and cultures of the ENTIRE world while Jesus was on a mountain.
Actually, can just anybody see people from the top of a mountain. You are being TOTALLY unreasonable.

What is so hard to except?

You are listening to the critics of the BIBLE and it seems that they are winning in your mind. Talk to GOD about it. He is the ONLY one who can persuade you.

 

But you don't see that you are adding to what is there to get your interpretation. It happens to be an interpretation I agree with, BTW.

In the subject at hand, I believe that it is God who has given us the ability to look at Creation and determine just how old it really is.

 

Helen

Member # 1595 posted March 26, 2004 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
It is against the rules of science to turn to scripture to defend science.

"And who made up these 'rules of science'?

Men."
==================

Sounds like the 'scientists' are a bunch of male chauvinists.

Darwin certainly was.