is Darwinism compatible With Bilbical Christianity?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Yeshua1, Oct 3, 2012.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Should a Christian hold to such?
     
  2. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    no. It'd be like trying trying to quench your thirst by drinking sand.
     
  3. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    The term "Darwinism" is misapplied as is the term "Calvinist". Darwin, himself, was not anti-church, just as Calvin, himself, would not fit the modern Calvinist viewpoint.

    We must be very careful with labels.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    To insure a meaningful answer you must define your terms!

    1. What is Bilbical Christianity?

    2. What is Darwinism? The term is antiquated and means different things to different people.

    A simple answer is yes!, some people think it is compatable.

    And yes, if it's true then a Christian should hold to it - - but it's certainly not essential for salivation :thumbs: {spelling intentional}.

    Rob
     
    #5 Deacon, Oct 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2012
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    It matters not what some people think. It is incompatible with Christianity. In fact at its origin it was intended to disprove much of the Bible. And unfortunately some well meaning Christians have lost sight of its history and bought into syncretism.
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Darwinism is false. That truth is recognized more as time passes even by those who are strict evolutionists.

    Though Darwin was initially not opposed to Christianity he became so in later life!

    http://www.darwin-literature.com/l_biography.html
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    think one can hold to a Thestic evolutionary point, even though to me would be wrong, but NOT strictly Darwinism aspect of Evolution!
     
  9. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,152
    Likes Received:
    365
    Darwinism is based on death for creation. The Bible clearly contradicts that so I don't see how they could be compatible.
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Good point.
     
  11. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two Answers..

    NO !!! & Absolutely NOT!!! If you accept Darwin and his molecules to man/millions of years THEORY and cast doubt on the historical authority of the Genesis account of Creation then you cast doubt on the authority of the entire Word of God. Creation happened as God recorded it. IT is a matter of faith though...and that is a gift from God.

    Bro.Greg
     
  12. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    At one time I held a "Thestic evolution" viewpoint. Didn't know it had a name. It was an effort reconcile my belief in Genesis 1:1 and all that I'd been taught from grade school forward. Logical sounding theories presented as fact. Presented as fact with no rebuttal, no alternative possibilities to the "how" of what we see on earth.

    FACT. Millions of years were needed to form the Grand Canyon.
    FACT. Fossil evidence confirms that birds evolved from dinasours.
    FACT. Embryo development stages prove the evolutionary path to mankind.
    FACT. etc & etc

    That is, until I was challenged by my pastor. Challenged to search for the TRUTH. The day I walked out of his study, I *knew* I could prove my viewpoint. After many days of study, armed with binders filled with pages marked with yellow highlight, the Holy Spirit, and "alternative possibilities" from the Internet proved I was wrong! Absolutely, positivity, without a doubt I was WRONG. There is no middle ground, no fence sitting, one foot in the Bible and the other in the secular world of so-called "theory".

    There is an alternative explaination for the formation of the Grand Canyon.
    Fossil "evidence" does not prove the birds and dinasours relationship.
    The classic embryo development presentation is a fraud.

    As a layman with a lifelong avid interest in geology, archeology, paleontology, etc. is wasn't easy to give up my theistic evolution position. Point by painstaking point, arguements against Genesis being a true historical record fell.

    For the first time, I learned of questions that evolutionists avoid because "evolution" doesn't answer them. Genesis does. For example, coal and oil deposits cannot come about through a slow build up of plant and animal matter. Rapid accumulation and compression are needed. That's found in Genesis. Evolution doesn't provide the required mechanics for accumulation and compression within the timeframe needed. The great flood does.

    For anyone who takes the theistic evolution position, I challenge you, just as my pastor challenged me. Take the time. Make the effort. Learn what you haven't been taught in schools and in History Channel documentaries. Look for those questions for which there are no answers in evolution. Look for the answers that can be found in Genesis.

    And above, all pray for guidance that the Holy Spirit will help you strip away the layers of indroctionation to reveal the TRUTH. I know I couldn't have done it alone.
     
  13. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eyes Wide Open!!!

    Brother...I could not even possibly say it any better than THAT!! So I'll just say...AMEN! AMEN! & AMEN!!!

    Bro.Greg:thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
  14. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    As long as there are humans around, there will always be alternatives to any position.
     
  15. timf

    timf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Darwin held two theories. The first was that "unfit" species that could not adapt to their environment would die off. The second was that mutations would add favorable genetic information such that new species would arise to take their turn at adaptation. He felt that these two theories worked together to explain the natural world he observed.

    It is true that we lose genetic information (species become extinct). Also there is selection, for example, as humans live with cockroaches, the slower ones are killed off such that it appears that cockroaches get faster when it is just that the genetic information for slow cockroaches is not passed on to subsequent generations.

    The theory that new genetic information is introduced through mutation has not proven valid. There are millions of mutations every day. Most produce cancers as it only takes one thing to go wrong. To obtain a favorable mutation, one would need thousands or millions of things to go "right" all at the same time.

    Most universities could be called temples to the religion of secularism (the worship of man in general and self in particular). These institutions hold religious like doctrines and they have taken to Darwin as a patron saint.

    There are countless declarations from people who call themselves scientists who declare the Biblical record to be inaccurate. However, when you investigate their claims, it is usually based on their claims of expertise (we should trust them), data that has been processed to produce results that substantiate their claims (fudge factors), or the old "everyone says that it is true".

    In summary, evolution states that nothing existed and then it blew up. Then it clumped together and became planets. Then minerals started to become people. There are several problems with this;

    1. To make a single cell (something that can reproduce) requires an alignment of atoms that is statistically unimaginable.

    2. In the last 150 years no one has ever observed a single favorable mutation. There are mutations every day. Cancer is a commonly observed mutation. An unfavorable mutation only requires a single failure. A favorable mutation may require as many as 100,000 simultaneous mutations. (also statistically unimaginable).

    3. There are no transition life forms in the fossil record.

    4. The dust on the moon is only 1/2" deep.

    If you consider that before the flood people lived longer, it may not be unreasonable to surmise that reptiles also lived longer. The longer reptiles live (unlike mammals), the larger they get. It might be reasonable to expect that some reptiles got very large. Man was not allowed to eat meat until after the flood. One might assume that the mammoth was a little slower than the elephant.

    Science has value as long as it searches for truth. When it becomes an enforcement arm of political and social engineers, it has no value. Consider those who did not agree with the "science" of phrenology (reading the bumps on your head) in the 1930s in Germany.

    To those who would declare the Bible as unreliable, I would urge caution. The Bible says "woe" to those that call good bad and bad good.

    To those who feel bullied by so-called declarers of "science", I say hold firm.

    Jesus said of those who were undermining faith that a millstone would be a better fate.

    There is no point in disputation or being drawn into a "tar baby" arguments. However, we need periodically to hear someone stand for the truth of God's word.
     
  16. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Here is a better question. Is Darwinism science?
     
  17. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    310
    Considering the forests of trees turned into books on the topic, the short answer is NO.
     
  18. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome Tim and Amen.

    Some of the points you mentioned and others are part of what helped me reverse the theistic evolution viewpoint that I once held.

    IMO, we need much more than "periodically" to stand for the truth of God's word. We need more to speak out on the difference between true science and so-called science. The loaf of "science" has been so levened that it has expanded to encompass speculations, unproven theories, and such that true science is hard to identify. (True science, understanding some of the mysteries of how God's creation functions.)
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    No, for IF even Athiests were to apply the scientic method so called to it as a theory, would fail miserably!

    ONLY works if one has a mindset totally against concept of there being a God, and Him as the Creator!
     
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Is Darwinism compatible with Biblical Christianity

    No, Dawinism has been discredited completely by science. Now folks advocating godless creation use the term "neo-Darwinism" to describe modern views, avoiding errors like Piltdown Man, and Recapitulation.

    YEC will claim every view that says creation did not occur less than 10,000 years ago is completely incompatible with Biblical Christianity, assuming their view is representative of such.

    OEC will allow for an older creation, like the Big Bang, and not assume God could not evolve some of creation over time.

    The actual biblical view from Job 38 is we were not there and we do not know how God created everything, only that He did.

    Speculation is the mother of false doctrine.
     

Share This Page

Loading...