Should Christians embrace evolution ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCath said:
I have been mostly lurking in this thread and really do not find anything compelling to take me one way or the other.

I believe that God created everything, that man was made by God in His image, and that sin and death entered though Adam and Eve.

Now can either side tell me how their belief (either in evolution or not) affects this?
Click to expand...
ByzCath; Evolution has to have death before Adam and Eve. Direct creation only precludes death.
 
tjm190 said:
So two groups that can’t breed together can be members of the same species? Then what’s a species?

And the methods for finding kinds actively disregard results that don’t fit their desires- about as unscientific and nonsensical as you can get.
Click to expand...
I understand a ‘species’ to be a man-made definition of one interpretation of many data. It’s not the end-all be-all of knowledge. It’s provisional.

The methods of describig kinds has been under attack since Lamarck and Darwin advanced their godless philosophy. When you learn that neither Science nor the TOE are authorities, you’ll see things differently and open up to questioning them from outside the box.
 
I started at 4:30PM with page 21. I’ve now caught up to where this thread has merrily spun to, since I posted yesterday:D.

ByzCath -

You ask a good question, which you’ve been patient to repeat at least twice. Why do I pick Biblical and Church teaching over evolution?
  1. Because modern evolution mindset remains shackled and occluded with Darwinian ‘uniformtarianism’. That is to say, billions of years of slow processes brought nature to where it is, now, blinds scientists to the truth of the matter.
  2. Because I have determined to live by what Jesus Christ says, and so far I have found no contradiction between what the Catholic Church teaches and the Apostles quoted Jesus Christ as saying.
  3. In brief, it is Jesus Christ and his Holy Roman Catholic Church which are the authority in my life. Anyone and anything else are subsidary authorities.
 
donsnow said:
I understand a ‘species’ to be a man-made definition of one interpretation of many data. It’s not the end-all be-all of knowledge. It’s provisional.
Click to expand...
What data? Scientists have missed the fact that members of one group can breed with another?
The methods of describig kinds has been under attack since Lamarck and Darwin advanced their godless philosophy. When you learn that neither Science nor the TOE are authorities, you’ll see things differently and open up to questioning them from outside the box.
Click to expand...
Science is a method by which knowledge is gained, and TOE is a conclusion from a set of the knowledge that has been gained.

Now that the ‘no evolution at the species level’ deal has been debunked, ID proponents have retreated to ‘no evolution at the kind level’- this is impossible to debunk since ‘kinds’ only exist in the minds of IDers.
 
tjm190 said:
What data? Scientists have missed the fact that members of one group can breed with another?

Science is a method by which knowledge is gained, and TOE is a conclusion from a set of the knowledge that has been gained.

Now that the ‘no evolution at the species level’ deal has been debunked, ID proponents have retreated to ‘no evolution at the kind level’- this is impossible to debunk since ‘kinds’ only exist in the minds of IDers.
Click to expand...
All the data.
No, scientists have not missed the observation that one group can breed with the other; science and the rest of us know about the mule.

I think you limit my understanding of science: a body of knowledge. And, there’s lots of data yet to be discovered. The scientific method is one way to test the knowledge and to explore the remaining unknown data.
I respectfully submit that there is yet no conclusion to the TOE, and it was and still remains mankind’s feeble attempt to describe the goings on of Creation.
I just don’t worship evolution, nor Darwin nor Lamarck etc. I’m saying the human natural desire to worship that superior to it, has been and is being perverted from God to Darwin, or Science, or Economics etc. I’m saying that that perversion underscores and contradicts the claim of an unbiased science. To so tout evolution, seems to me, to smack of worship. What evolution describes is the creature and worship need be kept for the Creator, not the creature.
 
donsnow said:
All the data.
No, scientists have not missed the observation that one group can breed with the other; science and the rest of us know about the mule.
Click to expand...
The mule is fertile- hence it is not a ‘viable offspring’
I think you limit my understanding of science: a body of knowledge. And, there’s lots of data yet to be discovered. The scientific method is one way to test the knowledge and to explore the remaining unknown data.
I respectfully submit that there is yet no conclusion to the TOE, and it was and still remains mankind’s feeble attempt to describe the goings on of Creation.
I just don’t worship evolution, nor Darwin nor Lamarck etc. I’m saying the human natural desire to worship that superior to it, has been and is being perverted from God to Darwin, or Science, or Economics etc. I’m saying that that perversion underscores and contradicts the claim of an unbiased science. To so tout evolution, seems to me, to smack of worship. What evolution describes is the creature and worship need be kept for the Creator, not the creature.
Click to expand...
How exactly does strong evidence based belief in a scientific/economic conclusion constitute worship? I strongly believe in the principle of scarcity- that having more of a good thing generally means we must give up some of another- just as I have strong belief in evolution and would defend both principles. How is this worship?
 
tjm190 said:
How exactly does strong evidence based belief in a scientific/economic conclusion constitute worship? I strongly believe in the principle of scarcity- that having more of a good thing generally means we must give up some of another- just as I have strong belief in evolution and would defend both principles. How is this worship?
Click to expand...
tjm, are you a closet “gravity worshipper”? Or do you worship God instead, without whom not anything falls that does fall?
 
tjm190 said:
The mule is fertile- hence it is not a ‘viable offspring’
Click to expand...
I always heard that mules can’t breed. What’s the use of being fertile, if it won’t conceive?
tjm190 said:
How exactly does strong evidence based belief in a scientific/economic conclusion constitute worship?
Click to expand...
We worship that, which we put first. And, I think that all the evidence for evolution remains circumstantial, and circumstantial is not strong evidence, imho.
tjm190 said:
I strongly believe in the principle of scarcity- that having more of a good thing generally means we must give up some of another- just as I have strong belief in evolution and would defend both principles. How is this worship?
Click to expand...
As in my above paragraph, worship is first a choice to prioritize something or someone as above all else. So, worship is not only an attitude, not only a feeling, but also a choice.
Furthermore, we aren’t talking about the principal of scarcity, we’re comparing evolution and God. Do you defend both God and evolution? I say, whichever of those two you defend, that is what you worship.
 
donsnow said:
I always heard that mules can’t breed. What’s the use of being fertile, if it won’t conceive?
Click to expand...
Typo- i meant infertile. Infertile offspring/offspring of offspring between two groups means they are different species.
We worship that, which we put first. And, I think that all the evidence for evolution remains circumstantial, and circumstantial is not strong evidence, imho.
Click to expand...
And those who believe in evolution put it above all else? Evolution has been all but confirmed by genetics and anatomy, with evidence provided by other fields as well.
As in my above paragraph, worship is first a choice to prioritize something or someone as above all else. So, worship is not only an attitude, not only a feeling, but also a choice.
Furthermore, we aren’t talking about the principal of scarcity, we’re comparing evolution and God. Do you defend both God and evolution? I say, whichever of those two you defend, that is what you worship.
Click to expand...
Neither side of this debate is the ‘God’ option- You defend literal evolution of Genesis, I evolution. I don’t worship my side, and I hope you don’t worship yours.

If we were debating whether Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp were the better actor, you could take a side without ‘worshiping.’
 
donsnow said:
Furthermore, we aren’t talking about the principal of scarcity, we’re comparing evolution and God. Do you defend both God and evolution? I say, whichever of those two you defend, that is what you worship.
Click to expand...
Donsnow, you’re comparing apples and democracy. “God” and “evolution” are not even remotely comparable “objects.” There is no contradiction between believing in God and accepting the scientific evidence for biological evolution.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Donsnow, you’re comparing apples and democracy. “God” and “evolution” are not even remotely comparable “objects.” There is no contradiction between believing in God and accepting the scientific evidence for biological evolution.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Other than this little problem called “Truth.”
 
tjm190 said:
Well we have the observed truth (science) and the revealed truth (revelation)- evolution conflicts with neither, while creationists conflicts with the former.
Click to expand...
You have to be more specific as some theories of evolution do conflict, those that deny any outside actor.
 
StAnastasia said:
Indeed. The truth of science does not contradict the truth of religion or theology.
Click to expand...
OK - those who know the truth of science, please raise your hands.

Those who know the truth of religion and theology, please raise your hands.
 
edwest2 said:
Should Christians embrace evolution?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t they? This is a bit like asking, “Should Christians embrace gravitation?” or “Should Christians embrace photosynthesis?” Rather silly.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
ricmat said:
OK - those who know the truth of science, please raise your hands.

Those who know the truth of religion and theology, please raise your hands.
Click to expand...
Cruciform said:
Why wouldn’t they? This is a bit like asking, “Should Christians embrace gravitation?” or “Should Christians embrace photosynthesis?” Rather silly.
Click to expand...
You forgot “Should Christians embrace Global Warming Alarmism.”

But thank you for responding by raising your hands to both questions above.
 
Cruciform said:
Why wouldn’t they? This is a bit like asking, “Should Christians embrace gravitation?” or “Should Christians embrace photosynthesis?” Rather silly.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Click to expand...
Gravity and photosynthesis have nothing to do with human origins.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top