Question for the theistic evolutionists on this board

This particular theistic evolutionist baptist has always taken the viewpoint that nothing exists except it exists within the mind of God; He sustains it all, from the beginning until now.

For witnessing purposes, I'll say science can tell us the how and the Bible can tell us the Who of creation.

If the person you are talking to gets into an argument with you, you aren't going to win him to Christ by winning the argument. You instead use your personal testimony and invite him to also have a personal relationship with the Creator through Jesus His Son.

 

I agree with Paul.

I do think it's troubling that you are implying that those who accept evolution are atheists, which isn't necessarily the case. Evolution doesn't deny God, or even a Christian God; all it denies is the belief of a minority of Christians who think they have a monopoly on what they have deemed as "the truth", through their interpretation of the bible. To which I compare them to the geocentrics of old.

 

A study not long ago, showed that most scientists are theists of some sort. About half of all scientists express a belief in a personal God, mostly the God of Abraham, with many of the rest being deists or other sorts of believers.

And scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution.

 

How can you say that when you read Genesis 1 and 2? You probably didn't mean it that way, but still.

-CubeX

 

I would like to hear an answer as well, since I visit the atheists’ boards and am currently exchanging emails with various atheists concerning evolution and Christianity. These atheists have the same info as you theists, but come to a totally different conclusion about the existence of God.

So it would be interesting to know how a theistic evolutionist would witness to an atheist who basically believes the same thing minus God.

 

How can you say that when you read Genesis 1 and 2? You probably didn't mean it that way, but still.

-CubeX </font>[/QUOTE]Well Genesis one and two contradict themselves if taken literally.

In any event, I think hardcore atheists would have to admit that the intellectually honest answer is agnosticism (the "I don't know" approach).

 

One witnesses to scientifically knowledgeable atheists the same way one witnesses to any other atheists.

As Augustine pointed out, it is a very bad tactic to make pronouncements about science in the name of God, unless one is certain that they are true.

This will often drive away atheists who understand science.

 

Not true. Atheists now have Hawking's Wave Function Universe Theory that proposes that the universe came into being without a cause or creator. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, IIRC, there is a fatal flaw with Hawking's Wave Function theory...Cripes, I wish I could remember it though.

 

Does this mean that the physical universe is just an illusion? Everything that we perceive is just the mental contruct of a powerful spirital being?
</font>[/QUOTE]No the physical universe is not just an illusion, and yes, everything we perceive is just the mental construct of THE omniscient spiritual being we know as God.

If a seeker asks you about Genesis and he has questions about creation, what do you tell him? I am really interested to know what thoughts you would share with a seeker? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I don't mind sharing my thoughts and logically they have as much hope for the thoughtful seeker after truth in helping a person come to God as sharing a brand of theology that requires abandoning one's knowledge of the way the universe has developed over time. Of course, one can count on an abysmal lack of knowledge about science in the typical citizen.

 

To me, sharing the gospel is first and formost about our relationship to God and to each other. Therefore, I try to be as honest as possible. If I believe something about science or theology, I say so and give my reasons. If I have doubts about something in science or theology, I express those doubts.

People will respond more positively to honest doubt and doctrinal differences than they will to a "good front" or handwaving. I want to become a living product of God's love, not a walking billboard advertising God as a product.

-Neil

 

I tell them that Genesis 1 and 2 are separate stories that the early faithful recognized as authentically representing our relationship with God.

Joshua

 

They are, ChurchBoy. Genesis 1 is the overview with the necessary details. Genesis 2:4b on is the detailed account -- the zeroing in. The 'two different stories' account comes in for two reasons:

1. The mistranslation of verbs in the KJV
2. The addition of the covenant name for God

There are some good indications, starting with Wiseman's discoveries in the 1930's, that all of Genesis may be a series of eyewitness accounts. This view is being held more seriously by more scholars now -- but is impossible for those not willing to take Genesis at its face value which indicates it is historical narrative.