Religion of Evolution

[BobRyan]

Indeed - however both Christian and Atheist evolutionist see the compromised position resulting from attempts to marry the Bible-denying claims of evolutionism AND Christianity's gospel together.

This could easily be seen as a dissincentive for Evolutionists to ever consider a compromised position.

Note - that not only do the Creationist believing Christians see this clearly - so do the evolutionists.

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details///

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine

F Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

Darwin shows the same "consistent embrace" of the religion of evolutionism instead of the Gospels that Richard Dawkings so clearly shows to be "obvious" to the thinking mind. Clearly and obviously and consistently - evolutionism directs its devotee away from the Gospels.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
Excerpt –

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"[/b] -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

QUESTION: What is your view of more liberal religious views that are held by people like your Oxford colleage Arthur Peacocke, who is both a biochemist and an Anglican minister?

MR. DAWKINS: More sophisticated theological views, people like Arthur Peacocke and John Polkinghorne – obviously they're not creationists in any simple sense -- they're not fundamentalists, they're not stupid. So do I respect them more? Well, in one respect obviously I do, because really you could have an intelligent conversation with them -- they're not ignorant. On the other hand, I can't understand what they're doing it for. I mean, I don't understand what it is that is being added, either to their lives or to the storehouse of human wisdom by bringing in this additional dimension of explanation. We have science. Science is by no means complete -- there's a lot that we don't know -- but we're working on it. Both of those two gentlemen are scientists, and they know what that means. They understand it and they respect it. We're working on building up a complete picture of the universe, which if we succeed will be a complete understanding of the universe and everything that is in it. So I don't understand why they waste their time going into this other stuff which never has added anything to the storehouse of human wisdom, and I don't see that it ever will.

QUESTION: Why do you think that in an age of science so many people, even in the West, and particularly in America, continue to believe in religion?

MR. DAWKINS: I don't understand why so many people who are sophisticated in science go on believing in God. I wish I did. You'd have to ask them.

I know that in some cases what they mean by God is very different from what the ordinary people that they talk to think they mean by God. There are physicists who are deeply awed, as I am, by the majesty of the universe, by the mystery of origins -- the origins of the laws of physics, the fundamental constants of physics, and who are moved by this to say there is something so mysterious that it is almost like God, and maybe use the metaphor of God. God is in the equations. God is in the fundamental constants. And that's fine. I mean, that's just redefinition of that which we find mysterious at the basis of the universe.
But other people misunderstand that, because to them God is that which forgives sins, that which transubstantiates wine, that which makes me live after I died -- and that is a totally different matter. And yet the misunderstanding is ripe for the picking. People will listen to sophisticated physicists, using God as this kind of metaphor for the deep constants, the deep problems, the deep principles of physics, and say that in that sense I believe in God. The reaction is, "Oh, this great physicist believes in God -- that means I'm free to believe in the trinity and in the crucifixion and in the reincarnation of Christ -- and all that stuff, which of course has nothing whatever to do with the fundamental constants of physics, which is what these physicists are talking about.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
MR. DAWKINS: I don't understand why so many people who are sophisticated in science go on believing in God. I wish I did. You'd have to ask them.

Interesting! So Dawkins himself said that in order to find out why those who are sophisticated in science go on believing in God, you need to ask those individuals. He didn't say that no such individuals existed -- on the contrary, he knew some of them! He said that he found their faith baffling and could not understand it.

But, unlike Bob, he did understand one thing: he didn't have the answer, and other people did! Bob, on the other hand, seems to content himself with the answers that unbelievers provide, even when they admit that they're the wrong ones to look to for insight on such matters.

 

[The Galatian]

Bob and Dawkins have a common goal; to convince people that science and Christianity are incompatible.

 

[BobRyan]

Those were pretty funny responses to that serious observation made by Dawkings guys.

Thanks!

But now - to address the points he raised.

#1. HE claims to actually KNOW something about the claims of evolutionism. NOTICE what HE CLAIMS that Is humanist atheist religion of evolutionism is CLAIMING FOR ITSELF?

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"[/b] -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

He is correct - these ARE the claims of evolutionism.

He is also correct in thinking that these claims are not compatible with the Gospel, with Christianity, with faith in the Creator.

Christians see this and know this to be true.

Atheists see this and know this to be true.

But then there are those who would "marry the two together" caught in the middle.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting that Darwin sees the SAME truth - that evolutionism undermines faith in the OT text as well as the NT text.

The very point - a few Christians on this thread are pointing out.

Still this is pretty "surprising" to some here who try to marry the Gospel to the doctrines of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christian evolutionists are between the rock and the hard-place of having to reject the leading statements of evolutionists as those evolutionists expose the claims and the results of the doctrines of evolutionism -- AND the Christian evolutionists have to reject the fact that Christians agree with Darwin and Dawkings about the fact that evolutionism IS the "only hope for atheists" as well as "the perfect replacement for God's statement on ORIGINS".

(Recall how we were "supposed to believe" that Christian were leaping in to the atheist evolutionist camps to SAVE Christianity - but here we see evolutionists AGREEING with Christians that evolutionism is undermining the Bible and leading Christians AWAY from the Gospel!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Creationists and athiests both desire to make faith and science mutually exclusive. They have a political agenda, not a scientific or a religious one.

Recall how we were "supposed to believe" that Christian were leaping in to the atheist evolutionist camps to SAVE Christianity

Keep in mind that Christians proposed modern evolutionary theory. You have it backwards. Atheists "leaped in" to try to save atheism.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Creationists and athiests both desire to make faith and science mutually exclusive. They have a political agenda, not a scientific or a religious one.

Wrong.

Christians show that God's Word is reliable in telling us exactly what God said and did. Christians claim that the God of nature is revealed IN Nature (see Romans 1 and Romans 10).

Atheist claim that nature "works by itself" without needing God. The entire equation is "complete" using the guesswork of man plus the "Ability" of nature. They seek spread the blanket of junk science over their anti-god religion and find the evolutionism - the perfect "Story" to wrap it in.

When confronted with "good science" contradicting junk science they simply "believe evolution anyway" because - as atheists - what other choice do they have?

Bob said --
Recall how we were "supposed to believe" that Christian were leaping in to the atheist evolutionist camps to SAVE Christianity

Galatian said -
Keep in mind that Christians proposed modern evolutionary theory.

Indeed - keep in mind that Darwin was trained as a pastor - and through evolutionism - became an atheist. See HIS quote above.

ATheists find in evolution the same thing that the atheist Darwin was getting out of it as IT lead him away from the Bible and toward atheism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details///

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine

F Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

Darwin shows the same "consistent embrace" of the religion of evolutionism instead of the Gospels that Richard Dawkings so clearly shows to be "obvious" to the thinking mind. Clearly and obviously and consistently - evolutionism directs its devotee away from the Gospels.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, BobRyan, we have this little problem. Evolution is valid, based on the evidence.
The Bible is God's word, and we accept that by faith.
Therefore, properly interpreted, the Bible will not be against evolution. It's really very simple!

And all those who try to get us to take one and not the other are simply trying to keep everybody from knowing the whole truth.

 

[UTEOTW]

Ditto Paul.

We know the Bible to be true.

We know the universe to be ancient and all life to be related through common descent.

Therefore to be outside of those two knowns is to be missing something.

 

[BobRyan]

The problem is that evolutionism presents ITS version of ORIGINS in direct contradiction to God's Word. It then reveals its own gaffs and blunders via its own atheist evolutionist scientists pointing out the various junk science principles to which it appeals. We see this clearly on the evolutionism-appeals-to-Junk-science thread.

The Bible "obviously" speaks to the SAME subject of ORIGINS and WHAT God did in MAKING -- in fact CREATING each element of earth on EACH day of Creation.

This contrast between origins war between God's Word and Atheist evolutionism is a fact so CLEAR that BOTH Evolutionists and Christian Creationists AGREE to this obvious blatant fact. (As I have shown in quote after quote from them)

What is amazing is that there would even exist any group of Christians at all that would seek to marry the atheist view of origins to God's view AS IF atheism and Christianity could co-exist.

Dawkings pointed out the flaw, Darwin pointed out the flaw - ALL Creationist Christians on this thread point out the SAME flaw.

But the blinders-on fact-challenged approach of some who seek to "pretend not to get the point" at every turn, who seek to misdirect and "play games" rather than deal with the points raised...

Well the contrast could not be more striking.

Notice that on THIS thread - the "tactics" are to either divert the subject away from scripture and TOWARD unproven junk science "stories" - or the point is to seek some OTHER text to use as justification for undermining REAL belief in what the Word said.

Suppose we did that with the virgin birth? This compromised non-exegetical approach to scripture that the evolutionists rely upon - could not be accepted in ANY portion of scripture on ANY subject.

The fact that christians of any stripe could turn a blind eye to this - is astounding!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Creationists and athiests both desire to make faith and science mutually exclusive. They have a political agenda, not a scientific or a religious one.

This is a classic "blinders on" approach to facts. Here we see the christian evolutionists apparently closing eyes and ears and repeating to "themselves" (Neither Atheist Evolutionist NOR Bible Believing Christians CAN possibly have a point! You must be trying to ignore science AND the Bible because you think it helps the Bible to ignore science).

In fact what is happening is that BOTH the atheists and the Bible believing christians are stepping up to the plate in a far more objective manner than are the compromised groups seeking to marry the junk science methods of atheists to God's Word on the subject of origins.

These two opposing groups - atheists and Christians agree to the obvious fact that BOTH evolutionism and The Bible's Creationism are addressing the subject of origins in very SPECIFIC and EXPLICIT terms.

Even the compromised group on this thread find THEMSELVES admitting that God DID present the origins fact of scripture in the Creationist model NOT in the evolutionist one.

This point is so obvious - so clearly shown here, so impossible to ignore that it amazes me that anyone could still cling to the blinders-on model we see repeated above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Creationists and athiests both desire to make faith and science mutually exclusive. They have a political agenda, not a scientific or a religious one.

In fact what is happening is that BOTH the atheists and the Bible believing christians are stepping up to the plate in a far more objective manner than are the compromised groups seeking to marry the junk science methods of atheists to God's Word on the subject of origins.

Bible-believing Christians know that Genesis doesn't contradict evolution. Creationists, on the other hand, agree with atheists on this question. For political reasons. They want to make God and science incompatible. Christians, on the other hand, overwhelmingly accept the fact that evolution is God's creation.

Even the compromised group on this thread find THEMSELVES admitting that God DID present the origins fact of scripture in the Creationist model NOT in the evolutionist one.

Creationists don't "admit" it, they simply believe it, without any reason to do so. In fact, it's false. Genesis specifically rules out YE creationism, since God Himself says that He created life by natural means. "Compromised" is the wrong word, I think. They are merely wrong, and have (perhaps innocently) added material to Genesis and ignored some genuine text, to make it more acceptable to them.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Do not make the mistake of confusing the aganda of a few atheists for the facts in the case. There a few out there who will use science to make themselves feel better. It does not change the facts in the case. And the facts are that the arth is ancient and common descent is how all life got here.

 

[BobRyan]

Galatians said

Bible-believing Christians know that Genesis doesn't contradict evolution.

WHAT!

Is there any basic fact that the compromised evolutionists will not ignore!!

Evolutionists NEVER say "In six DAYS GOD CREATED the HEAVENS and the earth!" ..

Look in ALL the journals of science and nature - NOT ONCE does such a statement "appear as a form of evolutionism"!! It conveys NO point in evolutionism - it is ANTI-evolutionism!

Surely darkness could NOT be so great as to make it "appear" that one form of evolutionism is "AND GOD SAID ... so God CREATED.. And evening and morning where the 5th day"!!

Is there "no limit"!!??

EVEN our own Christian evolutionists ON THIS board have "Admitted" that creationism is the story God told "INSTEAD" of the truth.

Galatians said --
For political reasons. They want to make God and science incompatible.

Political reasons!??????

I know that evolutionism requires that you believe "story-after-contrived-story" but this goes too far EVEN for an evolutionist!

What tea are you drinking?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob

Do not make the mistake of confusing the aganda of a few atheists for the facts in the case. There a few out there who will use science to make themselves feel better. It does not change the facts in the case. And the facts are that the arth is ancient and common descent is how all life got here.

I know that the mantra of evolutionism is that God's divine act in creation is nothing more than "carnage, bloodshed, disease, extinction, extermination and survival" and that these violent concepts of sin and suffering were "way too complicated" for early cultures in Bible times so they could NOT be let in on these very "complicated truths". (OR so your story goes.)

I know also that you would like to "ignore" the confessions of atheist evolutionists who TELL us that they AGREE with Christians who say that Creationism and evolutionism are two VERY different models of "origins".

I know that when key salient points in the Creationist argument are confessed from atheist evolutionist sources - you "delight" in pointing out that these atheists are STILL evolutionists in spite of the difficulties THEY admit with the data.

But in this subject area we focus on the specific point of the Creationist story in Gen 1-2:3 and its summary in Exodus 20:8-11. We "SEE" that the terms and the concepts used there are NEVER used as "a way to tell the story of evolutionism". And we contrast that to the "beliefs and doctrines" of evolutionism that is SO WELL adapted to what the Atheist "needs" to be true.

Notice these clear statements of God --

"AND GOD SAID... then GOD MADE.. THEN God CREATED.. and Evening and Morning where the 5th day".

"FOR in SIX days GOD MADE.. the heavens and the earth AND the sea AND ALL that is in them and rested the 7th day"

These are NEVER the terms, the principles, the TRUTHS of evolutionism - "ever".

And so it is no surprise that for atheist evolutionists - evolutionism IS THE ONLY belief system available to them.

Creationism in the form of Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 is not even remotely acceptable to the atheist as he/she knows too well that evolutionism ALONE meets the needed anti-god requirement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"I know also that you would like to "ignore" the confessions of atheist evolutionists who TELL us that they AGREE with Christians who say that Creationism and evolutionism are two VERY different models of "origins"."

Do not make the mistake of confusing the aganda of a few atheists for the facts in the case. There a few out there who will use science to make themselves feel better. It does not change the facts in the case. And the facts are that the earth is ancient and common descent is how all life got here.

"I know that when key salient points in the Creationist argument are confessed from atheist evolutionist sources - you "delight" in pointing out that these atheists are STILL evolutionists in spite of the difficulties THEY admit with the data."

And thus far, each time you have tried to make such a point, all you have demonstrated is your inability to accurately quote and in context quote scientists. You have yet to make a valid point or put forth a valid argument through such means.

Again, the Bible is true and common descent is a fact and if you have a hard time reconciling those two that is not my fault nor God's.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Bible-believing Christians know that Genesis doesn't contradict evolution.

WHAT!

In fact, Genesis directly refutes YE creationism, since "ex nihilo" creation of life is impossible to reconcile God's Word that He created life by natural means.

Is there any basic fact that the compromised evolutionists will not ignore!!

As you just learned, YE creationists must modify Genesis to get it to work with their religion of creationism.

Evolutionists NEVER say "In six DAYS GOD CREATED the HEAVENS and the earth!" ..

I say it myself. The only difference between me and you is that I accept what it means.

EVEN our own Christian evolutionists ON THIS board have "Admitted" that creationism is the story God told "INSTEAD" of the truth.

Haven't seen even one of them say that, Bob. I believe you just made that one up.

Barbarian on why atheists and creationists agree on Genesis:
For political reasons. They want to make God and science incompatible.

Political reasons!??????

Yep. Both have agendas, which make them modify God's word.