Evolution Corrupts the Gospel

I was considering it from the other side.

It was mentioned in another thread that "Surely" the Creator wouldn't have created (something) with defective DNA... or something to that effect. The main point though is the use of the concept "surely God wouldn't".

Well, if we are evolved from "lower" forms of life, surely God would have waited to give us the commandment to not eat of the tree of life until we had evolved far enough to actually be able to do it. Why would God have waited all that time for us to evolve to some creature that's almost there... almost able to live and not sin... and then give us the commandment. Surely He could have waited a bit longer don't ya think?

No, God created us as we are, for His purpose and His pleasure, and it's only for us to praise and glorify Him in preparation for the time that we return to Him after spending our time here.

Have a glorious Resurrection Day all !!

 

He is risen! Thanks be to God.

And a hundred and fifty years after Darwin discovered how living things evolve, the Gospel remains as pure and uncorrupted as it ever was.

Enjoy your Easter, in the Glory of God.

 

The problem for you fundamentalists is that a plain reading of the earth and what is in it, conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible. You place your confidence in the latter, while evolutionists place their confidence in the former. I don't think it is obvious that you fundamentalists are correct. You ought not to be too dogmatic on this issue, because you may be wrong.

 

Bob, you are mixing terms again. Theistic evolutionists are still creationists! Creationists are not evolutionists. They still believe in a Creator: thats a big difference. T.E. are just interpreting the natural revelation and the special revelation of God differently than you do. The Gospel remains intact.

Is there a passage or doctrine in the Bible that tells us to ignore what we observe? The scientific revolution was founded upon Christian principles that encouraged men to seek knowledge and explain the world around them.

What part of the Gospel is corrupted?
Don’t be mysterious! The word “Gospel” simply means good news! As a sinner I need that Good News!
Does my believing in any other side issue make my salvation less effective? It’s a simple message.

Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. Because they are convinced that “the data” shows that God worked over vast stretches of time and used certain evolutionary methods they employ a different interpretive method than the currently accepted “literal” method. Their trust in what they observe about the world (natural revelation from God) encourages them to seek out alternative methods of interpretation. Even so… they are saved by the same message of faith that everyone else is saved.

I’m not convinced that it corrupts the Gospel. God is faithful even in our weaknesses and misunderstandings.

 

This is true. Evolution is about natural processes.

True. Miracles are supernatural. Hence, they cannot be explained by natural processes, like evolution.

True. That would be silly. Miracles are events in which God steps in and acts in a supernatural fashion. Not because He needs to do so. He could have arranged nature so as to do His will entirely. Miracles are not a matter of necessity on God's part, but rather a means to teach us something important.

Amen.

This is figurative, not literal. God does not get tired from His exertions. Indeed, He has no exertions, being omnipotent. Neither did the universe appear as it is today in six literal days.

 

What's this about a living planet? Who around here thinks earth is alive?

 

I am addressing Christians that reject the Gen 1-3 account as if they can compromise the Gospel with evolution and still have everything work out. Something that both atheist evolutionists and creationist-Christians recognize as an impossibility.
You neglected theistic and Christian evolutionists. They don't see this as an impossibility at all. But I would hardly call a different interpretation of Gen1-3 as "rejecting" it.

 

>>>>>ACTUALLY no "key" SALIENT POINT in the mythology of evolutionism CAN be "read from nature". They are in fact NOT observable, verifiable, repeatable OR falsifiable<<<<<<<

I disagree and part of the basis for my disagreement is that you and others are simply mistaken and in error when you point to alleged problems with various dating methods and other things. I know that you are mistaken because as one who is experienced in the field, I can see your mistakes. Some of these mistakes have been pointed out by me and others in recent posts. Your claims simply won't pass muster. It takes a certain amount of arrogance on your part to try to tell specialists in the field where they are mistaken. It is obvious from your posts, that you are not experts in the field.

 

I am curious, Peter, as to your response to the two sections on Barry Setterfield's website starting here:
http://www.setterfield.org/RadiometricDating.htm#dendro

 

Let's revisit:

Of course there is. The Bible tells you what it is. It is the knowledge of good and evil. Animals lacking this understanding are perfect and sinless. They cannot sin, because they are incapable of understanding evil. So the Fall was the aquisition of the knowledge of good and evil. Any theory of evolution regarding man would have to accept the fact that we were at one time, unable to understand this.

See above. Man, upon understanding good and evil, becomes like God in that respect, but being unable to be completely good, is only potentially able to have fellowship with Him.

Nonsense. Any theistic evolutionary POV would require a Savior for just that reason.

But you're assuming that they agree with your particular interpretation of Genesis, and you have given us no reason to believe that is true.

Ditto.

Ditto.

So you're left with "I'm right because my interpretation of Scripture says God agrees with me."

Not very convincing, especially since your interpretation is a minority one among Christians.

 

How and when did man aquire this knowledge?

 

How did humans get a knowledge of good and evil?

It required that we become beings that were capable of doing so. It is a function of our nervous systems, and a rather recent acquisition; there are unfortunates who seem to be unable to do this, either by neurological deficit or by specific kinds of deprivation during their early years.

At some point, God granted an immortal soul to our ancestors. I suspect that is when we gained the ability to know good and evil.

 

But, didn't the aquisition of the knowledge of good and evil come from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as God told us in His Word?

Isn't that how Adam and Eve could pass that along to their offspring because they were changed (their eyes were opened - evidence that a change in them took place)?

And, doesn't God hate sin? If so, why wouldn't He wait a little longer for humans to "evolve" past the point of not being able to obey Him?