Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hello all you science buffs out there. :thumbsup:

There was a question raised in my head from another thread with respect to leaving our beliefs in the unbiased "grey zone." One that that sticks in my mind is belief in evolution. Can a Christian believe in evolution? Does evolution qualify as a mere inconsequential, "grey zone" theory? :dontknow:

I'd be interested in anyone's opinion.
Love to all,

sw

Evolution isn't "inconsequential." It's nonsense, except for germs and viruses.
In higher forms of life, I believe it works in reverse, ie, start with humans and wind up with something pretty close to monkey.

Hi SW

Re: "Can a Christian be an evolutionist?"

Christians, imo, can and are misguided in varying degrees....(this seems to be the "state of affairs" until our Master corrects us.)

If a Christian understands evolution as being God's method of creating...this is different than Evolutionists that deny God's creativity....

What really defines a Christian?

Here's another, equally awkward question, SW...."Can an atheist be a Christian?"....grin.

So. I guess my answer would/could be,,,grin....An Evolutionist could no more be a Christian than an Atheist could be a Christian.

There you have it. Finally. A straightforward answer to a straightforward question! :bubblegum:

Christian love and appreciation,

gogh

What does it matter if you do not know what lines of thinking, ways of interpreting and pieces of evidence lead people to be creationists or evolutionists?

My view is that Evolution should not be an issue in this regard.

I like your response gogh. Thats kind of my view. Jesus said that it was love that defined his disciples. It sounds simplistic but actually following Christ to death and being prepared to if necessary is not easy. Takes a life time for most of us to reach that level in inner peace. If we saw someone stuck on the cheek and they literally offered their left in response that would be an amassing Christian act. It wouldn't be hard to conclude that they were following Jesus and thus a Christian just by their action and apparent peace. Weather they believed in Evolution allot or to a degree would not even seem relevant. In terms of defining Christians by love I would say that Creationists don't seem to do that well. Its all about salvation by works and correct doctrine rather than following Jesus. The amusing thing about that is what are they gonna do if some of their straining out of gnat is in error?

Hi wickster :hibye:

Sure! Why not? Didn't Hitler? :D

As we sit here right now, my brother, it is completely inconsequential, and far from being a salvation issue....but...

I picture myself one day sitting in a Halliburton death camp (if they can catch me), with some neo-Nazi skinhead in a UN getup and some kind of horrific tattoo on his forehead telling me that I could avoid starving to death, or getting my head cut off, by letting go of my stubborn attachment to a fairy tale known as the Holy Bible, and joining the NWO (which will require a Luciferian initiation).

I know that many of you will vehemently disagree, but there is just no way to make the creation account in Genesis "fit" with the evolution theory, even if it is under the premise that it occurred by God's guiding hand...

My question to any Christian who believes the nonsense is this: It is a basic, fundamental doctrine taught in the Bible that the earth and all that is in it was created for the purpose of giving a home to mankind, created in God's image. What in tarnation was God doing for 4.5 billion years supposedly playing with dinosaurs??? I'd really like to know how one rationalizes such an idea. Because pseudo-science says so? :dontknow: The Rockefellers wrote the encyclopedia, and our textbooks!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...orning.asp

Karl Marx wrote to Darwin: "You have given me the basis for my new system." Thanks Charles, without your insightful contribution of "natural selection", we could never have a one-world commie government. :clap:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/communism.asp

Love ya wick :heartbeat:
Jesh

Hi brother SW,
I guess I started you off on this on the other thread? :)

You really must, please, define what you mean by Evolution and Creation.

If by evolution you mean that the universe, the planet and all life arose by chance accidents, random processes and a mixture of natural selection of the survival of the fittest by gene mutation. All that without any input from a Creator God...it is rubbish..the natural world testifies to its theistic origins.


If you mean by Creation a simplistic belief that ignores all the evidence of the natural world and asserts that life was created whoosh in six literal days 6,000 years ago? Then I, being of a polite nature, would say you are incorrect.

This polarization is a trap for the young when men like the very vocal evolutionist biologist, Richard Dawkins on one hand and the very vociferous Young Earth Creationists on the other, skew the debate, so that the intelligent young are misled by seeing two very opposite poles and just two options. One that is considered 'scientific' and the other one most believe is pseudo scientific.

If Christians want to believe in Genesis 1 as a six literal day event, it is ok by me but please don't say, science supports it.


Frankly, I do not know and I do not believe anyone knows, the processes used by the Creator to bring life into being and then shape life on planet Earth.

The grey area I see here SW, is in between the two extreme poles …..Between the black and white.

My guess is, and it’s a big guess, the Creator used a combination of special creation and gradual change.
The reason I say this is that some mechanisms and systems in nature are so complex they have to be up and running and cannot have arose by gradual change because they would have been completely useless to the creature during the developing process.

But clearly changes have occurred as anyone who has studied the natural world, knows.

peace to all
Derek

Ps. Yes, in answer to your question, some Christians do believe in theistic gradual change (evolution, if you like).

Yes you did :). As if I don't have enough to think about. but I forgive you.

I was actually referring to the 'evolution' of the Evolution theory and not to any specific 'grey area' arguments which never conclude with anything but endless debates.

When I first began studying with JW's, I was impressed at how much information existed against a theory that was never really explained as much as it was assumed in school. Not only that, but JW's had gathered more solid proof against it than any other religious group. So I imbarked on my own long and tedious, in-depth study of both its development and its proofs.

It wasn't until I examined its history all the way back to its predecessor theory, spontaneous generation, that I discovered that it was nothing but a belief and had absolutely no scientific data attached that couldn't find ambiguity in its context. In short, belief in Evolution is all about motive, not provable, scientific data. In other words, it was a theory inspired and perpetuated by athiests under the guise of science. Its objective?—to defeat belief in the existence of God.

How it was that JW's so ably defeated its arguments was testimony to me that led to me also accepting the WT's unproven doctrines so readily, which is, in my mind, the most devious method an organization can use to gain converts. (I will one day embark on a discussion of such cultist, seminar methods I have participated in and how I see are very dangerous.) It is unfortunate, because the WT almost had me convinced to deny their 2% poison solution. 2% is all you need to poison an entire water supply. The rest is obvious.

:heartbeat:sw

Well gogh, you did it again. Such a simple answer I had to read it several times over to make certain there wasn't something deeper or subliminal I missed. Yep, you said it in a nutshell! :ok:
:heartbeat:
sw

It is my understanding that "evolution" involves being one species and changing into another.

Viruses and germs do not evolve, because even though they do go through changes, the flu virus remains a flu virus, the HIV virus remains HIV virus, and so on...they don't become something else. No matter how often the virus mutates, (which is quite often), a virus always remains it's original descendant species. I don't think that qualifies as evolution.

Hi all,
This is where it gets problematical.

We all have different definitions.

Unless one defines what they mean any subsequent statements are quite meaningless.

For example Melancholymuse I think Freyd may have a different interpretation of species to yourself.

Please, what do you mean by species? Different families of creatures?

Animals are grouped into families and given a generic name, followed by a specific name and then this is followed by their subspecific name.

I think you mean the generic name and not the specific name, Melancholymuse, when you mention species?

The Wolf and the Coyote are not the same species as I recall, by are of the same generic origin.

peace to all
Derek

The official definition for species for is a group of animals which can producing fertile offspring by (inter)breeding. Ofcourse this gives difficulties in defining microorganims, but it is very hard to define what you mean by the word species anyway.

Hi Spiceant and all,

I agree, inter-fertility criteria are often used as qualifications for specie status. However, it does not always work to the advantage of those who take a simplistic approach.

A horse and a donkey are very similar in structure and have a lot of gene sequences in common.

Hence the Latin generic name (or family name) is the same; equus, when we combine this with the specific names we get equus caballus, which is horse and equus asinus , which is donkey

One could argue they were created seperately and that is why the progeny...the mule..is infertile! In fact I have heard the WTS argue this when treating the subject of evolution.

However, there are apparently a number of instances where mules have produced offspring..thus the exception disproves the rule.
If we assert the horse and donkey are separate creations, what is the Creator doing letting them have fertile offspring? And why if they are the same family do they most of time produce infertile offspring?

Actually there is more gene variation within animal families than many would want to recognise.
peace to all
Derek

Derek rightly pointed out that we need to define "evolution". There are many scientists who believe in evolution, and also believe in God. They may also be Christian. So clearly it's possible for a Christian to believe in evolution, since many do.

However, as you know, I take the Bible literally when there is no indication that I should do so otherwise. The book of Genesis is written as a historical account, so when we start calling into question how God did it, we are on slippery ground, in my opinion.

When God said he created the animals and plants, made Adam from the dust, blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and placed him in a planted garden which was made to grow food, I see no reason to take this other than literally. If we interpret this account any other way, we open up the rest of the Bible for interpretation any way we please.

Then perhaps we should view the Flood as metaphorical, or the parting of the Red Sea, or indeed the historicity of the ancient patriarchs... or perhaps even the literal existence of Jesus. Maybe Jesus was just a metaphor, after all. And why not, if Genesis was not a literal account?

In other words, believing in the "scientific" view of evolution (in all its guises) can ultimately lead to lack of faith in God's Word, in my opinion.

I appreciate that many people try to "fit" Genesis into an evolutionary mould, but it does not fit. There is not even a HINT of evolution in the Genesis account.

If there had been, don't you think it would have been the JEWS that would have come up with the theory of evolution THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, instead of some God-haters (yes, Darwin was DELIGHTED to be able to do away with God) in the 19th century?

There's a reason most Christians and Jews up until the 19th century took the Genesis account literally. It's because there's no room for evolution there.

(Disclaimer: I only take the historical parts literally. When the author is using metaphors or imagery, it's usually clear - such as the prophets who often use symbolic or poetic language, the poetry of the Psalms, or the clear and specified symbology of Revelation).

So YES, Christians can be evolutions, but I also think they find themselves on dangerously slippy ground. For if Genesis is a metaphor, maybe Moses and Jesus are too.

And before long, that slippery ground may collapse underneath them, leading to atheism.

Hi brother Interpretum,
At least we agree on something?

However, some old earth evolutionist/creationists do not have a monopoly on emasculating the Bible canon, do they?

We both know of one YEC who would remove Paul's writings from the NT! :)

shalom
Derek