Featured Is the Bible compatible with the theory of evolution?

This is why the phrase " falsely so called" appears in scripture.
1Ti 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
(KJV)
Any one professing evolution, a non science, has erred from the faith.
Evolution is not compatible with faith. It seeks to eliminate unanswered questions, with sight.
It was born in atheism, so confessed its author. ..:"I was simply speculating on 'What if there was no God, how would we have gotten here?'".
It's successive advocates have all built upon false premises, thinking thatft-repeated=fact.
Russian*entomologist*Yuri Filipchenko*first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation".

*Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times *

and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist*Richard Goldschmidt(1940) and the paleontologist*Otto Schindewolf*to describe their orthogenetic theories.[7]
(Wikipedia-macroevolution -origin of the term)
The FSCS were forced to divorce themselves from one of their beloved terms, because exposure to its weakness by true science.

 

Scarlett, thanks so much for sharing these thoughts. "Neo-Darwinism" (Naturalism) does in fact have a shared position with abiogenesis, but not the concept of evolution in general. Peruse the websites, for information, of Biologos and also the Discovery Institute. (There are others) Recall, from the Genesis narrative that God created the earth with the properties to bring forth life on the basis of His command. Based on that, I do not believe abiogenesis to be accurate. I completely agree with you that "absolute abiogenesis is a false construct of the naturalist mind seeking ways to eliminate the need of a creative force outside of nature itself. That "aspect" or position of abiogenesis should in my mind be rejected by christians and theists in general.

I "suspect" you have read some of Michael Behe. Wonderful biochemist, love his work and his conclusions as to parameters "edges" of evolution is awesome.

 

Is the Bible compatible with the theory of evolution?

No. They are two, competing creation stories.

 

Creation Ministries International ( www.creation.com ) an easily searchable and well cross-referenced source of information on multiple subjects supplying the data strategically omitted by mainstream, evolutionary "scientists," and illuminating the arbitrary assumptions upon which their conclusions are based.

 

As I see it, and I could be wrong, abiogenesis, when tied to evolutionary models is to describe the emergence of life from purely natural elements and a natural (godless) input. Many theists (christians) view that the formation of earth, by the commands of God, were such that earth was designed and engineered to bring forth life, so for any theist, abiogenesis has a totallly different "ring" to it, than to the naruralist.

I like to point to the phrase in the creation narrative....."and God said, let the earth bring forth"...... perhaps a hint that earth was created by Him to respond to His command to bring forth.

I appreciate greatly your courage to espouse some interest, without "whole scale" denial of the domain of science and whatever contributions in understanding creation it brings to the table, particularly in the face of much criticism on a board such as this. God granted us curiosity, intelligence and rational thought, He certainly expects us and is honored by our use of such. There is much we do not know, much to be learned and discovered. Even much we are incorrect ab,ut, but "real science" always leaves itself open for new discoveries, theorems and investigations. To the naturalist, "he" is seeking ways to explain the natural order without any need of a creative god, for the theist, it is a wondrous examination of an immensely creative and imaginative Creator.

 

biologos.org
http://network.asa3.org/donations/
discovery.org
magisreasonfaith.org

 

Math is our friend.

I too, am a teacher of mathematics at our local community college. I have taught all levels from Basic Math through the Calculus and DE. For the past several years, I have taken a position to help deal with the large numbers of students who come to college unprepared mathematically. More than 80% of the students who come to our institution are not prepared for a college level mathematics course, many are required to invest more than a year in Transitional courses prior to even Intermediate College Algebra. I thoroughly enjoy assisting these students experience success in academics, many for the first time in their academic life.

 

A problem which this thread may address is the difference between "evolution" and those creationists who consider that this present world was "reformed" from a prior one.

That thinking is NOT evolutionary, but often considered as such by some.

One can hold to a literal seven day creation story, and also understand that part of the very nature of God is as a creator.

God did not just start creating a few millennia ago.

Often folks consider that this earth was God's first rodeo, and, that He wasn't very successful riding the bronco, so He's been playing the clown. Distracting the bull that throws the rider. (one can take a picture too extreme, I suppose)

Point being that just because God started our clock does not mean he did not have other clocks in which we know little or nothing about. However, in the typical myopically way, some assume the center of the universe.

 

Agedman, are referencing the "Gap Theory"? Is so, it is not something I would propose, but neither would I reject it outright.

There are some scientific propositions that show 7 days are mathematically equivalent to the current science statement of 13.5 billion year age for the universe.

 

Biologos is heretical. Evolution is based on a naturalistic worldview.

Bro, you need to read Van Til. I think you fail to see the way that you are reasoning, is not a biblical way of reasoning.

 

Returning to the OP and the issue of when did death enter the world, we must first define "death." Are we speaking of physical death or spiritual death. When the spirit departs, the body dies. If the "death" in view is spiritual death, then physical death could have existed before the fall. For example, did Adam and Eve eat plant food. Did the plants consumed "die" physically but not spiritually?

Could physical pain, suffering and death be part of the "very good" creation of God? Were they "the first things."

Some say science is the enemy of God, but I believe science is the friend of God. Like peeling an onion, science is working at getting to the truth, but when evaluated historically, science accepts then learns, then rejects, and then exposes a new view, built in part on whatever is still considered valid.

 

Because the Bible says that because man sinned death came to MAN. Nothing about animals is mentioned.

Yes, and animals are not sinners.

Yep, sin entered the world through Adam and death came to humans. In fact, if you look at the verse, it says that death "passed upon all men" [KJV]. Look at other translations and it appears that death was already present and was extended to men because of Adam's sin:

"and thus death spread to all men [NKJV] [ESV] [NASB]

I don't know. Maybe. God was certainly well pleased with death in Phillipians 2:

8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

The only conclusion you can reach from the passages cited was that HUMAN death was not present until Adam sinned. Nothing is said about animal death.

Note: I am not an evolutionist. I'm simply pointing out that an honest reading of the scriptures does not preclude death for animals before the Fall.

 

My problem with much of those who hold to a "gap" theory is what seems to be some elongation of the 7 days into ages.

I hold to the literal 24 hour days starting in verse 4 where the time was actually begun by what we humankind can reckon by looking at the movement of the earth and stars. Pre day 4, there didn't seem to be a "physical sun" established as we would recognize.

How long a day was before day 4 is not given, but assumed by many to be 24 hours, but that is as much of an assumption as those who desire it to be an age.


I suppose, what I take from the "gap" theory, is just the "gap."

The only reason I do is the "tohuw, bohuw" of verse two. Such a state is totally out of the creative order of God, nor does God create darkness. Rather darkness is as a result of no light. "In Him is no darkness."

 

I appreciate your genuine concern, but I do not agree with you.

 

If the "Biologos" folks desire the believers to move away from Biblical inerrancy, it would generally place them as a group as presenting a faulty view.

Heretical isn't a word that I would use at this time.

There are many who hold that certain documents or even copies of the original are not complete or have problems - such is a discussion for a different part of the BB forums.

I mention it here just to show that disagreement as far as what is valid or not in relation to Scripture rendering is far from heretical. Unfortunately, there are few who are true scientists and at the same time theologians. Often the strength of one is not the strength of the other, and one must rely upon the findings of the other.

In my opinion, it is important that folks not think that the whole of the "Biologos" movement is something that should be embraced. There are issues within it that may or may not be true to Scriptures.

Discernment is ever the watchword with any matter concerning the believer.