Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

There have been many educated people who came to the Gospel BECAUSE of their study of evolution vs creation. Now they believe in creation. And it led them to a belief in God and a belief in the Bible.

So to say that creation will keep some educated people away from the gospel....well really those "educated people" are just using that as an excuse to say "no" to God.

Those who I know who have been converted like this are just as scholarly and highly educated as those who refuse to accept creation. They are just responding to the Gospel differently.

The teaching of evolution as fact I believe is dangerous to Christianity, too. It is something that is taught in the schools which is diametrically opposed to that which is being taught the Christian kids on Sunday and at home. So who do these kids believe? We tell them to believe their teachers about everything else, we have placed those kids under their tutelage on purpose. Yet then when they come home we tell them their teachers are wrong? It doesn't always line up with the kids, and it can and does cause great doubt with the young people.

 

Even if you believe that original sin is passed genetically (which I do not) what does that have to do with evolution? Adam and Eve were human, committed sin. Assuming something happened to their genes, it was passed to their children.

I agree it is important. And there are many beliefs that scripture does not address, evolution being one of them since it was developed 1400 years after scripture was canonized. Genesis being written well before that was obviously not written as a scientific document and I believe many aspects of the creation narrative follow the order suggested by evolutionary theory. God is the author of all truth.

 

"I think it is fine to refuse to accept a theory based on faith. Almost all of what we believe is faith-based and not scientific theory based."-----------------------------------------------------

Gold Dragon you are really being unreasonable here. The whole point of a theroy is that it is an open question, only a possibility. It is put forth so other reserchers can study and confirm or denigh. It is an open question. Only a law is accepted as absolute truth in science. So we can legitamately reject a theory on science as well as faith.

 

That is great.

Some of them are using it as an excuse. Some of them are being sincere.

 

Read my posts again. Common ancestry is a fact. A single common ancestor for all life is theory. </font>[/QUOTE]First, that's kind of squishing your way around the matter, isn't it? Creationists all agree that there were original populations from which the plants and animals of today descended. That these were original created populations is what Genesis says. Do you disagree with that?

As far as TO on speciation -- all they are playing with is variation and claiming evolution, which is the same dishonest approach my earlier post talked about.

And yes, all data does require interpretation. That is why it cannot be stated that evolution as TO promotes it is a fact or even a decent theory. It is not. It is an idea which has monopolized science in the name of naturalism. If there are ONLY naturalistic explanations for everything, then of course all you are left with is some kind of evolution, despite the evidence to the contrary (which must then be avoided like the plague). But if the Bible is correct about recently created populations by kind, then the evidence from population genetics, genetics, biology, geology, physics, and everything else fits rather nicely with no need for twisted explanations, made-up dark matter, or any of that other nonsense.

It's one or the other. To pretend that evolution and the Bible can fit together is not only an exercise in futility, it is flat out rebellion against God.

 

That is a statement of faith.

Even if there were comprehensive experiments that demonstrated every mechanism required for evolution... you could not reasonably make the statement above. Evolution, if true, is history. Proving that something could have happened is not the same as proving that it did unless all other explanations are categorically falsified.

Evolution hasn't even scratched the surface... in part because evolutionists refuse to allow all the alternatives from being considered. Preservation of the naturalistic presupposition has become primary regardless of whether it leads science to the truth or not.

Nope. The ancestral trees are speculative theories based on homologies, analogies, and parsimony. They are the "best guess". But worse than being a guess, the guesses are founded on the assumption that evolution is true (circular reasoning).

The explanations may not be the best at all... just the best if evolution is true.

Evolution does no better than to accommodate the available evidence.

I believe that a form of common descent likely occurred. But there are some facts that make common descent from original "kinds" favorable to common "ascent" from inorganic chemistry.

One is that change within a species has genetic limits. They resist going beyond those limits... Though the limits may become more restrictive, there is no direct evidence to suggest that they become less so. Second, the type of evolution that we see depends on attributes that are inherited. We don't see changes with a zero starting point.

No those "un"facts should lead someone not to trust evolutionists who exhibit such ridiculous overconfidence in their "faith" in evolution.

 

A couple posts back, I talked about scientific laws that are no longer accepted as true.

Scientific laws are not some "level up" of a scientific theory. Scientific laws are scientific theories that can be stated simply given a set of conditions. New evidence can easily come to show a scientific law is false.

Theories are definitely open. Nothing in science should be treated dogmatically and dogmatic evolutionists also don't understand science. With that said, evolution is one of the more trustworthy theories in science, having undergone and withstanding several generations of scientific criticism. It is definitely false in some ways, as all scientific theories are. As new evidence comes to light, we will begin to understand what those ways are.

 

Even if you believe that original sin is passed genetically (which I do not) what does that have to do with evolution? Adam and Eve were human, committed sin. Assuming something happened to their genes, it was passed to their children.</font>[/QUOTE] We aren't told how it is passed on. I doubt it is genetics though undoubtedly their genes began to be corrupt.

Original sin depends on a literal Adam and Eve if the Bible (OT and NT) means anything like what it says. If you are going to accept them as literal people then please tell me how you can parse references to them in any reasonable fashion to separate their direct creation by God from their existence. If you believe the Bible on their existence, why not how they came to be?

Further, if you believe they evolved then they had ancestors who would have done things that could only be described as "sin".

I agree it is important. And there are many beliefs that scripture does not address, evolution being one of them since it was developed 1400 years after scripture was canonized.</font>[/QUOTE] Oh but the Bible does address evolution. It says that in the beginning God created... then goes on to describe a process by which He spoke the world into existence in six days defined as a morning and an evening.

Not only that, throughout scripture you have references to the creation account as factual history. There were other theories on origins during the writing of the Bible. The Bible doesn't address them either. It simply gives a narrative and repeatedly affirms it.

"Many"? Which is in error when they don't parallel?

OTOH, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, why not simply believe that He did what He said? You say that God would be tempting you if He created the world recently but left evidence of age? Wouldn't He be tempting us to believe a lie even more if He narrated events that weren't accurate portrayals?

Right, so forgive me when He says "morning and evening" constituted a day of creation and I believe it.

 

Not true. Evolutionists have carefully crafted the debate so that evolution does not have to prove its premises nor compare itself to explanations that do not depend on strict naturalism.

The recent ID demagogury by evolutionists is a case in point. Somehow evolutionists truly believe that the assumption of no active creator is less metaphysical than not making that assumption.

 

While I don't want to be accused of backing down from a debate, I think we have taken this topic down its usual path again and most of the posts addressed towards me have nothing to do with the OP, which I think is a good question.

If you guys want, we can continue some of those issues in other threads, although I don't know how motivated I'll be about rehashing the same positions over again.

Although I must commend ScottJ and Bunyon for being much more articulate in presenting their positions than the last time I've done this dance with you. You guys are doing some good thinking and debating.

 

Who says they appear idiotic? Is that your opinion? Quite subjective isn't it?</font>[/QUOTE]That is why I said I believe...

I don't believe evolution being a fact and God's word saying that all creations multiplied after their own "kind" to be contradictions. How do I appear? If I appear idiotic to you or the scientific world, that is ok with me.

It doesn't disagree with any scientific theories since science as a field didn't exist at the time of its writing.

It didn't. Things in science do not move from theory to fact or law. That is a misunderstanding of what those terms mean in the world of science.

Talk.Origins : Evolution as Fact & Theory

I definitely believe God's Word, even though most of it is not eye witness accounts, including Genesis.

 

All of the history is eyewitness accounts, including Genesis! Are the Gospels not eyewitness accounts? Is Acts not an eyewitness account? What about Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings? MOST of the Bible is not eyewitness accounts? That is REALLY depending on man's mind over God's Word, isn't it?

And that is EXACTLY where the teaching of evolution leads and that is why it is so damaging to the Christian faith. Your posts have provided an excellent example of that, Gold Dragon. Your faith claims to be in Christ, but the fact of the matter is that when push comes to shove, you prefer man's word over God's.

Science did not exist then? Bull. Knowledge of the natural world IS science and the Hebrews were not so shabby at that, living as they did in rather close communion with the natural world. In fact, when Jesus chose to teach about spiritual things to them, what did He use as examples? The natural world. The world very familiar to all of them.

Much more familiar, in fact, than it is to the vast majority of westerners today.

Which may be why all the writers of the Bible who touch upon the subject of origins treat Genesis as literally and accurately true.

 

How can you accept that God has the power to create a child born of earthly woman, without the sperm of a human male, that He has the power to and knowledge to tell the entire world centuries before the event that this child will die on the cross, that He has the power to crucify, stab, and entomb that same man for three days - then raise Him to walk the earth - - -

AND doubt His ability to create the earth by intelligent design because it doesn't fit with science?

The greatest miracles of the bible violate scientific theory. Over and over and over again.

 

Genesis is not an eyewitness account. The writer of Genesis was not present.

It's possible that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John. However, the remaining three Gospels were written by persons who did not witness the events they were writing about.

Don't get me wrong, I believe scripture to be completey inspired by God and infallible. Just because the writers were not present does not make this truth of scripture less so.

 

Oh help. John, Genesis IS a series of eyewitness accounts with each of the authors signing off at the end. Please see
http://ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

I have essays from three OT scholars and emails from others supporting this theory now. The evidence is strong that Genesis is truly a series of eyewitness accounts.

In the New Testament, Matthew certainly was an eyewitness. Mark may have been. Luke interviewed those involved and wrote Acts as an eyewitness.

The writers were very much present during the events they describe!

 

I don't doubt God's ability to create the earth or that he did. God definitely created the whole earth and all that is in it. His intimate knowledge and design of processes like evolution for diversity of life are awe inspiring.

 

How can you doubt His ability to create the earth by evolution because it doesn't fit with theology?

Hmmm. Mere words are not sufficient. Lets check the evidence.

 

Wow. This thread seems to have taken off.

I am not sure I could have put it any better.

Evolution is no threat, by itself, to Christianity any more than any other truth is a threat.

The problem comes from both sides. And from both sides the problem is the false assertion that there is an incompatibility between the two. From the side of the believers, this gives some the impression that they must choose between the two which can be a real problem for those who hold both to be truth. From the side of nonbelievers comes the problem of those who look for an excuse to reject God and so they concoct a conflict in order to dismiss the Bible and God.