Evolution: A note on terminology...or being wise

[shodan]

Years ago I saw a PBS program on the Galapagos Islands, narrated by Alan Ladd. And there it all was, proof of "evolution." I sat there a bit stunned. All they had shown was what we used to be careful to call "micro-evolution," those adaptations of species to their environment. But it ended with the proclamation that (macro) evolution was the the sure deal.

Now, in-house we mostly understand what we mean. But when posting in the sight of all we ought to be more careful. When a Christian announces that "evolution" hasn't been proven, or whatever, those outside our clique simply write us off as screwballs.

The same thing happens in other areas like "global warming." When someone announces it is a "hoax," he is either unthankful that we are no longer in the Little Ice Age, or just stupid. But 1 degree or so since that age is hardly earth shattering.

Let's just take more care with terms and how we use them. Many times uncaring Christians (an oxymoron) do more harm than good. And along these lines it would be good to read these comments of Augustine and Calvin on Genesis.

 

[Yeshua1]

Years ago I saw a PBS program on the Galapagos Islands, narrated by Alan Ladd. And there it all was, proof of "evolution." I sat there a bit stunned. All they had shown was what we used to be careful to call "micro-evolution," those adaptations of species to their environment. But it ended with the proclamation that (macro) evolution was the the sure deal.

Now, in-house we mostly understand what we mean. But when posting in the sight of all we ought to be more careful. When a Christian announces that "evolution" hasn't been proven, or whatever, those outside our clique simply write us off as screwballs.

The same thing happens in other areas like "global warming." When someone announces it is a "hoax," he is either unthankful that we are no longer in the Little Ice Age, or just stupid. But 1 degree or so since that age is hardly earth shattering.

Let's just take more care with terms and how we use them. Many times uncaring Christians (an oxymoron) do more harm than good. And along these lines it would be good to read these comments of Augustine and Calvin on Genesis.

We must stay firmly on the inspiration and authority of scripture in this area, for when some meant well to appease evolutionists and created Theistic evolution, worst of both positions!

 

[church mouse guy]

PBS should be defunded.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Theistic evolution, like the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism, completely undermines the authority of the Scriptures. I have known a man for almost 50 years who literally is a rocket scientist, and a believer. When I bring up the subject of Creation vs evolution, he simply refuses to talk to me. I can't get him to understand that if the Biblical account of the Creation isn't believable, we have no good reason to believe anything else the Scriptures say. If the Creation was just a parable then maybe the resurrection of Jesus was too. Anytime truth compromises with error, truth loses. It is a tragic mistake for Christians to try to reconcile the Bible to science. Science done properly will always be compatible with the Word of God. The Word never changes, but science changes all the time.

 

[Deacon]

Theistic evolution, like the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism, completely undermines the authority of the Scriptures. I have known a man for almost 50 years who literally is a rocket scientist, and a believer. When I bring up the subject of Creation vs evolution, he simply refuses to talk to me.

I can understand the man’s frustration with you. Get your basic terms right.
The Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism are not theistic evolutionary theories.
Proponents of every creationist theory attempt to reconcile the physical data with Scripture.

Neither the Gap theory, Progressive Creationism or theistic evolution undermines the authority of Scripture. We find Christians that support each theory in almost every denomination.
There are doctrinal differences, areas of debate that are of some concern, but each system attempts to reconcile science with Scripture.

You may argue about the importance of certain doctrines within the debate, but when you begin using the slippery slope argument you immediately close the door to further understanding.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

I can understand the man’s frustration with you. Get your basic terms right.
The Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism are not theistic evolutionary theories.
Proponents of every creationist theory attempt to reconcile the physical data with Scripture.

Neither the Gap theory, Progressive Creationism or theistic evolution undermines the authority of Scripture. We find Christians that support each theory in almost every denomination.
There are doctrinal differences, areas of debate that are of some concern, but each system attempts to reconcile science with Scripture.

You may argue about the importance of certain doctrines within the debate, but when you begin using the slippery slope argument you immediately close the door to further understanding.

Rob

God did not require nor use evolutionary processes as either Theistic or Darwinians purpose!...

 

[Phillip Diller]

I can understand the man’s frustration with you. Get your basic terms right.
The Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism are not theistic evolutionary theories.
Proponents of every creationist theory attempt to reconcile the physical data with Scripture.

Neither the Gap theory, Progressive Creationism or theistic evolution undermines the authority of Scripture. We find Christians that support each theory in almost every denomination.
There are doctrinal differences, areas of debate that are of some concern, but each system attempts to reconcile science with Scripture.

You may argue about the importance of certain doctrines within the debate, but when you begin using the slippery slope argument you immediately close the door to further understanding.

Rob

If you will read my post again you will see that I did not say that the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism ARE theistic evolution, but that they all have the effect of making room for people to question the accuracy and authority of God's Word. Remember that satan's question to Eve was "Did God really say...", knowing that if he could get her to question God's Word, he could get her to doubt His Word and believe something He never said. If we doubt what the Scripture clearly says about the Creation then we can be persuaded to question other things in the Word, like did Jesus actually die on the cross, did He really rise from the dead, is eternal life merely analogical, etc. In the end you believe that nothing in the Bible can be trusted, which is exactly what satan wants.

Phillip

 

[Revmitchell]

Years ago I saw a PBS program on the Galapagos Islands, narrated by Alan Ladd. And there it all was, proof of "evolution." I sat there a bit stunned. All they had shown was what we used to be careful to call "micro-evolution," those adaptations of species to their environment. But it ended with the proclamation that (macro) evolution was the the sure deal.

Now, in-house we mostly understand what we mean. But when posting in the sight of all we ought to be more careful. When a Christian announces that "evolution" hasn't been proven, or whatever, those outside our clique simply write us off as screwballs.

The same thing happens in other areas like "global warming." When someone announces it is a "hoax," he is either unthankful that we are no longer in the Little Ice Age, or just stupid. But 1 degree or so since that age is hardly earth shattering.

Let's just take more care with terms and how we use them. Many times uncaring Christians (an oxymoron) do more harm than good. And along these lines it would be good to read these comments of Augustine and Calvin on Genesis.

Ive got news for ya. Evolutionists also write off Christians as screwballs who believe in theistic evolution. It doesnt matter what we do it will be the same.

 

[Phillip Diller]

I can understand the man’s frustration with you. Get your basic terms right.
The Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism are not theistic evolutionary theories.
Proponents of every creationist theory attempt to reconcile the physical data with Scripture.

Neither the Gap theory, Progressive Creationism or theistic evolution undermines the authority of Scripture. We find Christians that support each theory in almost every denomination.
There are doctrinal differences, areas of debate that are of some concern, but each system attempts to reconcile science with Scripture.

You may argue about the importance of certain doctrines within the debate, but when you begin using the slippery slope argument you immediately close the door to further understanding.

Rob

And one more thing, the acertion that these compromise positions don't undermine the authority of Scripture is laughable - it is their purpose, to make the unchanging Word of God compatible with the ever-changing dictates of science. If arguing as I do, that science properly done will not be at odds with the Word, is what you mean as a slippery slope then I have serious issues with that. The Bible says that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. All three of the compromise positions deny that man existed before death - therefore they directly deny the clear declaration of the Word of God. The Bible is the first, last and only authority where truth is concerned.

Phillip

 

[Deacon]

I can understand the man’s frustration with you.
Science is designed to make us ask questions about our beliefs

“Science done properly”
Science is about evidence, theories, experiments.
Science attempts to understand the physical world around us.
When you lay your own personal theological constraints upon those that do research, you check or smother their ability to do any real scientific work.

The universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning. Through science, we begin to understand and define these natural laws.

Scriptures carry the authority vested in them through the character of God; scriptures are ‘God-breathed’. Since God does not change, neither will that which proceeds from him.
Science is not vested with this characteristic.
Because science is about evidence, by itself, it carries no “authority.”
Any questions relating to its authority are answered by an appeal to the facts, determined through experiments. Show me the facts!

The world about us is govern by laws that proceeded from God.
It is by understanding these laws that we can begin to understand how things about us function and begin to glimpse at how complex God is; one aspect of his character.

When one limits science by determining beforehand what they want it to say, it’s not science anymore, they have entered into the study of theology.
You may debate all you like about ‘death before sin’ and the theological implications relating to it. It is a theological discussion, not science.

Rob

.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

And one more thing, the acertion that these compromise positions don't undermine the authority of Scripture is laughable - it is their purpose, to make the unchanging Word of God compatible with the ever-changing dictates of science. If arguing as I do, that science properly done will not be at odds with the Word, is what you mean as a slippery slope then I have serious issues with that. The Bible says that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. All three of the compromise positions deny that man existed before death - therefore they directly deny the clear declaration of the Word of God. The Bible is the first, last and only authority where truth is concerned.

Phillip

Far too often, people have been indoctrinated into their "beliefs," not taught how to think and understand so that they have a well-grounded faith. Equating one's interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself is unbiblical.

Unfortunately, the approach you offer is cultic and works extremely well for those who have been or are being mistaught Scripture.

However, it doesn't work well for those who don't want to be browbeaten. You will find that such will reject your approach and attitude. Many will yet be mature Christians, faithful Christians, fruitful Christians, perhaps even more so than yourself.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...And along these lines it would be good to read these comments of Augustine and Calvin on Genesis.

I appreciate the reminder of Augustine's caveat in the article, which ends this way:

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions” [1 Timothy 1:7]. (All emphases, mine, [that is, by author])​

 

[Yeshua1]

I can understand the man’s frustration with you.
Science is designed to make us ask questions about our beliefs

“Science done properly”
Science is about evidence, theories, experiments.
Science attempts to understand the physical world around us.
When you lay your own personal theological constraints upon those that do research, you check or smother their ability to do any real scientific work.

The universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning. Through science, we begin to understand and define these natural laws.

Scriptures carry the authority vested in them through the character of God; scriptures are ‘God-breathed’. Since God does not change, neither will that which proceeds from him.
Science is not vested with this characteristic.
Because science is about evidence, by itself, it carries no “authority.”
Any questions relating to its authority are answered by an appeal to the facts, determined through experiments. Show me the facts!

The world about us is govern by laws that proceeded from God.
It is by understanding these laws that we can begin to understand how things about us function and begin to glimpse at how complex God is; one aspect of his character.

When one limits science by determining beforehand what they want it to say, it’s not science anymore, they have entered into the study of theology.
You may debate all you like about ‘death before sin’ and the theological implications relating to it. It is a theological discussion, not science.

Rob

.

We filter scientific "truths" thru lens of scriptures, not filter scripture thru lens of science!

 

[Yeshua1]

Far too often, people have been indoctrinated into their "beliefs," not taught how to think and understand so that they have a well-grounded faith. Equating one's interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself is unbiblical.

Unfortunately, the approach you offer is cultic and works extremely well for those who have been or are being mistaught Scripture.

However, it doesn't work well for those who don't want to be browbeaten. You will find that such will reject your approach and attitude. Many will yet be mature Christians, faithful Christians, fruitful Christians, perhaps even more so than yourself.

many times though, when one accommodates bible and Christianity to so called "scientific facts", one happens is a watering down of the inspiration and authority of scripture!

 

[Yeshua1]

And one more thing, the acertion that these compromise positions don't undermine the authority of Scripture is laughable - it is their purpose, to make the unchanging Word of God compatible with the ever-changing dictates of science. If arguing as I do, that science properly done will not be at odds with the Word, is what you mean as a slippery slope then I have serious issues with that. The Bible says that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. All three of the compromise positions deny that man existed before death - therefore they directly deny the clear declaration of the Word of God. The Bible is the first, last and only authority where truth is concerned.

Phillip

Science when understood correctly will not contradict the scriptures, but since much of it does, the scriptures must remain the final authority!

 

[Deacon]

The Scriptures when understood correctly will not contradict the discipline of science,

...and when they do, one should examine their presuppositions, both scientific and theological.
​

Rob

​

 

[Yeshua1]

The Scriptures when understood correctly will not contradict the discipline of science,

...and when they do, one should examine their presuppositions, both scientific and theological.
​

Rob

​

Except that assured "facts" such as evolution are bogus!

 

[timtofly]

The Scriptures when understood correctly will not contradict the discipline of science,

...and when they do, one should examine their presuppositions, both scientific and theological.
​

Rob

​

Scripture cannot change. Any contradiction is on the part of science. The strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2 is of Satan and inludes everything about science we have allowed in our thoughts that do contradict Scripture. Satan started the deception even before Christ, when the first Greek scientist started the process of the earth as a round object in a vast universe.

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture cannot change. Any contradiction is on the part of science. The strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2 is of Satan and inludes everything about science we have allowed in our thoughts that do contradict Scripture. Satan started the deception even before Christ, when the first Greek scientist started the process of the earth as a round object in a vast universe.

Evolution starts out on the premise that God does not exist, natural means only for life, so it is already bad science!

 

[timtofly]

Evolution starts out on the premise that God does not exist, natural means only for life, so it is already bad science!

Science is not bad. The way we have interpreted the facts has led to a virtual reality in our minds. It was not bad. It was comforting. But it did blind us from actual reality.