Can a creationist be an evolutionist?


(Chris Falter) #21

Hi Wilkin,

The Bible says a lot about how God controls and uses weather. The meteorologists who make the weather reports in your city, wherever that happens to be, explicitly do not give any consideration to God’s sovereignty as part of the weather prediction process, however.

So do you reject the practice of “atheistic” meteorology?


#22

In science, you don’t observe the theory. Theories explain the observations. It would seem to me that you don’t have any scientific reason for rejecting the theory of evolution, and no scientific reason for rejecting the evidence that supports it:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

That’s exactly what AiG’s version of creationism is, a human tradition. It is perfectly analogous to Geocentrism.

Galileo’s crime was for insisting that Heliocentrism was real which contradicted the church’s authority.

That is yet another opinion that many Christians do not share. If you go to the Biologos.org homepage you will find tons of articles on these topics which you may find of interest.


(Phil) #23

Forgive the tangent, but I was taught that “nauseous” meant to cause nausea (as in :a nauseous odor) and “nauseated” meant to have nausea. Thus when a patient stated, “I am nauseous” my reply with a smile was always, “Yes, you are.” But alas, frequent misuse of the word now makes them synonyms in common usage and my passive aggressive personal joke is taken away.


(James McKay) #24

Wookin, there are two things you need to realise here.

First of all, science is not defined by what is directly observable; it is defined by what is testable. Contrary to what Ken Ham et al claim, there are ways of testing historical science that do not require you to have “been there.”

Secondly, regardless of exactly what you consider “evolution” to refer to (and different people do have different ideas about this!), it has, at its core, a number of indisputable facts that are both testable and directly observable, and that are nothing to do with any kind of presupposition. In particular:

  1. Allele frequencies change with successive generations in any biological population.
  2. The general trends favour alleles that are better suited to the environment, or that otherwise confer some other advantage.
  3. New alleles are introduced when, for example, mutations occur.
  4. Biological populations become geographically separated.
  5. The alleles diverge between the two populations.
  6. Given sufficient time, the divergence happens to the extent that the respective populations can no longer interbreed.
  7. Go to 1.

Points 1-6 have all been observed directly both in the lab and in nature. Point 7 is merely a statement of the obvious.

It’s not at all clear to me what, if anything, about this process itself contradicts the Bible. There are some related topics that give rise to a good deal of theological debate (e.g. where do Adam and Eve fit into the picture, what are we to make of the apparent relationship between humans and great apes, etc) but the basic underlying process is rigorous, testable, evidence-based science, and to claim otherwise simply isn’t getting your facts straight.


(Wookin Panub) #25

Sorry, but I have not a clue what you are alluding to. I don’t see the correlation between the weather report and God’s sovereignty. Can you dumb it down for me?


(Wookin Panub) #26

Evolution cannot be tested. That is where you and I disagree, which is the reason why I say evolution is not science.


(Wookin Panub) #27

In science, you don’t observe the theory. Theories explain the observations. It would seem to me that you don’t have any scientific reason for rejecting the theory of evolution, and no scientific reason for rejecting the evidence that supports it:

Well, you would be wrong. Since evolution cannot be tested and that there is no evidence to support it. Both scientifically and theologically. Evolution is a belief driven by a presupposition.

That’s exactly what AiG’s version of creationism is, a human tradition. It is perfectly analogous to Geocentrism.

A human tradition based on scriptural authority. This is not “AIG” version. This is any Christian who put scriptural authority above all else. Not to you, it may be human but it is the safest guard we have in interpreting scripture as opposed to any other human tradition i.e. evolution

Galileo’s crime was for insisting that Heliocentrism was real which contradicted the church’s authority.

I know that, but the person I responded made it out to be science vs the church. It was science vs science in the beginning. No different when we see scientists butt heads over their findings. Theology did not enter the arena until Galileo brought it in. Galileo was firstto spout scripture to support his discovery.

That is yet another opinion that many Christians do not share. If you go to the Biologos.org homepage you will find tons of articles on these topics which you may find of interest.

Many Christians are only fooling themselves that they can deep six Genesis and still hold on to the rest of the bible. If Genesis is myth then so is the rest of the bible, and Christianity is a faus. That’s not to say, we don’t have a creator. It’s just that the creator would not be God, because this creator cannot be trusted in anything he says or promises. My camp relies on scripture. Without it, then we might as well eat and drink for tomorrow we die.


#28

Here are 29+ tests and evidences for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You are putting your own interpretation of the Bible above everything else.

The only thing they are deep-sixing is your interpretation of Genesis.

Then the whole Bible is a myth because Jesus taught in parables.


#29

Just in case you missed it before, here are 29 tests of evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


(Lynn Munter) #30

I suppose that the logical conclusion of the “were you there?” claim is that reality only extends as far back as the oldest living memory on Earth. Call it a hundred ten or twelve years. Everything older than that is “mythical.” Every time the oldest person on earth dies, more of what used to be reality is no longer real, it’s just what we suppose might have happened based on hearsay.

Abraham Lincoln might have been real, or he might have been just a collection of stories invented for political purposes. We have no real way of knowing either way, but it’s probably safe to assume, because God didn’t tell us directly about him in the Bible, that it doesn’t matter.

@Wookin_Panub, does this sound like the attitude of good followers of Truth?


(Wookin Panub) #31

Here are 29+ tests and evidences for evolution:

I do not consider specie variation to be evolution. They are still the same specie. Variation in a specie is not proof of evolution. It is just proof of your belief in evolution

You are putting your own interpretation of the Bible above everything else

.Actually, you are doing that. I am merely reading the book of Genesis as it is plainly written. You allow evolution to dictate how you interpret scripture. I allow scripture to dictate how I interpret scripture.

The only thing they are deep-sixing is your interpretation of Genesis.

Again, not my interpretation. I am merely reading what it states.

Then the whole Bible is a myth because Jesus taught in parables.

Exactly! You just proved my point. You know Jesus taught in parables. The bible makes it clear when Jesus is teaching in parables and when he isn’t.


(Wookin Panub) #32

Interesting. I like your argument. I would have to say, that we do have an historical record. It’s the bible. God recorded it from the start. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning…”


#33

But how do you interpret scripture in order to know how to interpret scripture? What you are saying is my interpretation of Scripture tells me how to interpret Scripture. Kind of circular logic.


(Wookin Panub) #34

I don’t think it is circular logic. It might be circular if I argued, that I know scripture is right, because scripture says it is right. But that’s a fair question you asked. How else will we know that the interpretation of the scripture we are reading is right. The only way we can is to take a systematic theological approach, and find verses relating to the ones we are attempting to interpret, and see if it harmonizes or contradicts. This is the safest way to interpret scripture.


#35

Perhaps you should actually read the material because it isn’t discussing variation within species.

What is wrong about letting the Creation help us interpret the Bible? Also, why is a strict literal interpretation the right one?

Just as the Roman Catholic Church merely read what the Bible states and came to the conclusion that Heliocentrism had to be wrong.

You said that if any part of the Bible is not literal then the whole thing is a false. You are the one saying that the Bible is false.


#36

That’s what humans wrote. I think you are forgetting that, according to the Bible itself, God did not dictate the Bible.


(Lynn Munter) #37

Except that we know God didn’t record it from the start. God is only said to have directly recorded as much as would fit on two stone tablets an old man could carry up and down a mountain. How much was that? Not the whole Pentateuch, not even on ten stone tablets.

The Pentateuch (I was just reading up on this) seems to be an amalgamation of everything Exilic scholars considered reliable information about Moses’s time and their complete codes of laws.

The Bible was written by humans, with influence (but not word-for-word dictation) from God. The whole myth of dictation is a human invention, unless you can quote me where it says God wrote the whole Bible like that.


(Wookin Panub) #38

Perhaps you should actually read the material because it isn’t discussing variation within species.

I know it doesn’t. I have read the same thing over and over again, but I promise out of respect that you took the time to give it to me. I WILL READ IT.

What is wrong about letting the Creation help us interpret the Bible? Also, why is a strict literal interpretation the right one?

Despite the obvious. Think about that. Why stop at science? Why not feminism or any other construct to help us interpret scripture.

Just as the Roman Catholic Church merely read what the Bible states and came to the conclusion that Heliocentrism had to be wrong.

First of all, I was referring to the book of Genesis i.e. first day, second day etc… and secondly, the Roman Catholic did not base that finding off of scripture but their previous scientists findings. It was more tradition than scripture. They countered with scripture in order to protect their tradition.

You said that if any part of the Bible is not literal then the whole thing is a false. You are the one saying that the Bible is false.

I never said that. I said, if what Jesus said was knowingly false, then Jesus is a liar and nothing he says in the bible can be trusted.


(Wookin Panub) #39

I don’t know what else to say but (2 Timothy 3:16) “16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”


(Wookin Panub) #40

After everything you wrote. How could you and why would you trust ANYTHING the bible says? Come on…really. Jesus rose from the dead? Jonah was in a fish for 3 days?