Difference between "atheistic evolution" and "christian evolution?"

[valient_Lucy]

I asked this in another post, but I think it deserves a new thread.

What are the specific differences between “atheistic evolution” and “Christian evolutioin?” I think one would be Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. That there is no guiding design, that there are random changes to DNA, and that the species unfit for their environment just die off. And so what are some other main differences? Do Christians provide any alternative explanations for how change is introduced in generations? And is there any actual evidense for rejecting Darwinian Evolution other than the reason that it is just incompatable with the faith?

Thanks.

I am not an evolutionary biologist, or a biologist in any way. Nor am I an expert in the Catholic view of evolution. But to me, the difference seems to be largely a matter of perspective. I could be completly wrong, but that seems to be mainly the issue.
“There are two ways of looking at the world: one as though nothing is a miracle, the other as though everything is a miracle.”
Albert Einstein (I believe.)

 

[becka01101]

while this does not prove evloution, it certainly disproves creationism. When we look into space we can see 14 billion light years away and nothing further since that is the start of the Big Bang. How can you refute that?

Quite easily. What form of proof is your preference?

I love doing research.

Becka

 

[wjp984]

you look into a telescope and see it. I have seen many pictures of stuff millons and billions of years away in my Cosmos class. Light only travels 3.0 *10^8 m/s so that proves that the universe and the world is a lot older than the creationists say.

 

[simbagizmo]

PhilVaz,

The sun which separates night from day was created on the fourth “day.” Hebrews 4 says God is still resting in the seventh “day.” These are not literal days according to the Bible. Your response?

I am assuming you are refering to Hebrews 4:4.

Hebrews 4:4
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, “AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS”;

Here Paul states in Scripture is clear that God “Rested” on the seventh day. Not that he is still resting, but Rested is past tense and on the seventh day, a literal day.

Here is another from Exodus 20:8-11

Exodus 20:8-11
8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

God himself told Moses in the commandments that the people are to keep the Sabbath. Why? Look at verse 11. God created all in 6 days and “rested”, again past tense, on the seventh day, a literal day.

Exodus 31:12-17
12 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
13 "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
14 'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
15 'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
16 ‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’
17 “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

Again look at verse 17, God states that the LORD made all in 6 days, and on the 7th day he rested. These are literal days.

We can look at Genesis use of the phrase prior to each “day”, “And the evening and morning were the … day”

Using the Strong’'s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary here is the definition for the words used for evening and morning

evening
‛ereb
eh’-reb
dusk: - + day, even (-ing, tide), night.

morning
bôqer
bo’-ker
properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: - (+) day, early, morning, morrow.

God qualified each of the days of creation with this phrase. Why did he do this? Maybe because he foresaw the current attack on His account of creation, I do not know. All I know is that God’s Word is true and he did include it.

As for Adam and Eve and the Fall, what does the traditions of the church actually teach about this. Was there a physical man named Adam and Woman named Eve, or are these symbolic of all men and women? Were they a product of evolution? What was the actual act of original sin they did? Were other men and women evolved other than Adam and Eve? I am not being silly here, I am serious in these questions.

How does the church determine which of God’s Word is literal and which is symbolic?

 

[becka01101]

you look into a telescope and see it. I have seen many pictures of stuff millons and billions of years away in my Cosmos class. Light only travels 3.0 *10^8 m/s so that proves that the universe and the world is a lot older than the creationists say.

You didn’t answer my question. What type of proof is your preference?

 

[Hubriss]

It’s scientific emperical proof. It really doesn’t matter what type it is.

Well becka, from reading one of your earlier posts. What kind of proof is reasonable proof to you?

And Della. You should probably actually read the links PhilVaz provides.

 

[becka01101]

It’s scientific emperical proof. It really doesn’t matter what type it is.

Well becka, from reading one of your earlier posts. What kind of proof is reasonable proof to you?

When it comes to the creation/evolution debate, everyone has their preferred area. Some like the geology side of things, some like the biology or zoology part, and some like the biblical things. Creation can be proven in a variety of ways, but its not worth the time to try to ‘biologically’ prove that creation is the truth when the person is interested in the astronomy side.

 

[ribozyme]

When it comes to the creation/evolution debate, everyone has their preferred area. Some like the geology side of things, some like the biology or zoology part, and some like the biblical things. Creation can be proven in a variety of ways, but its not worth the time to try to ‘biologically’ prove that creation is the truth when the person is interested in the astronomy side.

Hmm… well the “Biblical things” are not based on empirical evidence unlike the other sciences that you have mentioned.

 

[nucatholic]

Thats like asking what the difference between atheistic algebra and christian algebra is.

 

[ribozyme]

Thats like asking what the difference between atheistic algebra and christian algebra is.

hmm… not quite as it is much easier to prove something in mathematics than in science. Mathematics is deductive; science is empirical.

 

[becka01101]

Hmm… well the “Biblical things” are not based on empirical evidence unlike the other sciences that you have mentioned.

I never said it was- but it is a basis for people’s beliefs.

 

[Ahimsa]

Gosh, another evolution thread??? Wake me up when it’s over. :yawn:

 

[ribozyme]

Gosh, another evolution thread??? Wake me up when it’s over. :yawn:

Why do people dislike evolution? Evolution is not boring!!!

 

[Ahimsa]

Why do people dislike evolution? Evolution is not boring!!!

Hey Ribo,

You’re talking to an old soldier here. I’ve been battling creationists in the swamps, over the jungle tree-tops, within the hallowed halls of the capitols of veritable super-powers. My vows are pre-Cambrian; my weapons, ante-diluvian. In all of my skirmishes, hand-to-hand combat, and nuclear stalemates with the creationists, I’ve learned it all comes down to this: the true battle, the true jihad, is in the human Heart.

Old evolutionists never die. We just evolve.

 

[credno]

I have to admit that I didn’t read all of the threads so if I am repeating anyone I apologize. If you’re REALLY interested in this subject, I suggest the book “Case for a Creator” by Lee Stroebel. It is an excellent analysis of the flaws in Darwin’s Theory of evolution. I am no scientist, but after reading this book there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt in my mind that Darwin’s theory is flawed and the theory of intelligent design is EXTREMELY convincing.

Chris

 

[ribozyme]

Hey Ribo,

You’re talking to an old soldier here. I’ve been battling creationists in the swamps, over the jungle tree-tops, within the hallowed halls of the capitols of veritable super-powers. My vows are pre-Cambrian; my weapons, ante-diluvian. In all of my skirmishes, hand-to-hand combat, and nuclear stalemates with the creationists, I’ve learned it all comes down to this: the true battle, the true jihad, is in the human Heart.

Old evolutionists never die. We just evolve.

Hey Ahimsa,

Well we are different soldiers for evolution. Most people would just transitional fossils and phylogenies for evolution. I perfer to point to use studies involving amazing molecules that evolved from random sequences as evidence for the potential of evolution. I am concerned not with the history of evolution, but the issue of what is evolution. What is intrinsic about life from a chemical point of view that allows it evolve?

Also from reading Gerald Joyce’s work, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile evolution with a personal God.

 

[Ahimsa]

Hey Ahimsa,

Well we are different soldiers for evolution. Most people would just transitional fossils and phylogenies for evolution. I perfer to point to use studies involving amazing molecules that evolved from random sequences as evidence for the potential of evolution. I am concerned not with the history of evolution, but the issue of what is evolution. What is intrinsic about life from a chemical point of view that allows it evolve?

Also from reading Gerald Joyce’s work, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile evolution with a personal God.

What do you mean by “personal God”?

 

[ribozyme]

What do you mean by “personal God”?

A God who interacts with humanity as opposed to a God who created the universe and left it alone.

At best, Joyce’s views only allow a God who created life and left life on its own.

 

[Nullasalus]

A God who interacts with humanity as opposed to a God who created the universe and left it alone.

At best, Joyce’s views only allow a God who created life and left life on its own.

The problem I’ve always had with the deistic view is that it can extend unto infinity.

If the God ‘was concerned enough’ to create the universe, and then to allow for anthropic properties, and then to allow a condition to arise where life can come from those properties, and then allow for that life to become complicated, conscious, self-aware, etc… why should it stop there? Maybe this deistic God also intended Christ, morality, and ultimately salvation (and damnation, if that’s your cup of tea.)

That’s the ‘problem’ with an omnipotent, omniscient God. He doesn’t need to be active, even ‘personal’ to be… well, personal. A strange situation, sure, but so’s reality.

 

[simbagizmo]

you look into a telescope and see it. I have seen many pictures of stuff millons and billions of years away in my Cosmos class. Light only travels 3.0 *10^8 m/s so that proves that the universe and the world is a lot older than the creationists say.

wjp984, this is all true, but for the fact that God actually created Light, Genesis 1:3

Genesis 1:14-19
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Here in Genesis, God created the lights, greater light (the sun), lesser light (the moon), and stars. He created them to give light on the earth, govern day and night, and to be signs for seasons, days and years.

From this, it states that not only did God create the stars that you are talking about, but also the light from the stars. Hence the light that we see does not have to been travelling millions of years for us to see it. If God’s Word is true, God created the light from the stars along with the stars.

After he did this, “there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.”