Do Evolutionary Theory And Scripture Contradict Each Other?

[J.E.S (Jonathan)]

@Christy

Why do you think atheism and the evolutionary model of biological diversity are one and the same thing?

@Christy
Note:
One thing (of the many) that_I_ have learned from participation on this site (and from a different post on the same site as the link in question) is that Evolutionists can be informed, and be sincere Christians. However…
Evolution (in the broad sense) gives lots of credibility to Atheism, since it:
A) Allows life (and anything/everything for that matter) to come into existence without God, or any supernatural entity.
B) How do we know science is right about MACROEVOLUTION? (I apparently have to start distinguishing again, judging from a reply by gbrooks9):

@gbrooks9

The evolution of bacterial and viral vectors conforms to Evolutionary theory.

@gbrooks9

despite the fossil evidence, even if the Earth was 5 billion years old, Speciation is a genetical impossibility.

(I take it by “speciation” you are speaking of MICROEVOLUTION)

As for that, I thought @GJDS summed it up pretty well:

@GJDS

Your examples simply show that change occurs over time - hardly stuff to worry professional scientists.

@gbrooks9

These comments are hardly a refutation.

@gbrooks…that does not appear to be a good refutation to his refutation.

@Christy

so if what science calculates about reality conflicts with what I think the Bible says about reality, then I need to figure out where I am understanding something wrong.

If something as scientifically unsound as Evolution conflicts with the Bible in a profound way (and yes, I consider throwing away [or dismissing as allegory/fable] several [highly important] chapters worth of scripture profound) I think the “science” of fallible human beings is what should first be doubted. As @GJDS seems to be implying, we have never observed MACROEVOLUTION…even in the fossil record (some say we have, but these specimens are rather questionable).

@gbrooks9

If Evolutionary Theory had failed any of its fundamental premises generations ago (regarding common descent or speciation), there wouldn’t be a BioLogos today.

@gbrooks9
Maybe it’s time to take BioLogos down?
Regarding speciation: Microevolution (correct me if I’m wrong [I should really make an abbreviation for that] seriously). No problem! It’s been observed on many occasions (some of them mentioned by @gbrooks9)
Regarding common descent: A few questions: How could all of the vastly different life forms we see today have evolved from mutations (when we see that mutations lose genetic information, not create it, or at least cause detriments to the survival of the mutant organism (especially in bacteria)? Why don’t we find any (or at least way way more) credible transitional forms in the fossil record? If the Earth is billions of years old, why isn’t there WAY more sediment in the oceans?

Even if that gets shot down, there has to be (may I be so bold as to say there is?) at least ONE fundamental premise of Evolutionary Theory that has failed.

@gbrooks9

If Evolutionary Theory had failed any of its fundamental premises generations ago (regarding common descent or speciation), there wouldn’t be a BioLogos today.

Let’s not jeopardize the future of this discussion.

In all seriousness, people, I have many, many questions about evolution, they only keep increasing, (most I haven’t even asked yet) and I really want answers to all of them (and I do not count “unenlightened YEC” or “that hardly poses a problem to EC” as an answer. I haven’t gotten MUCH of that from this forum however.)

Also in all seriousness: I make no claims to be any smarter or wiser than anyone (in fact, I am certain that you ALL are much more knowledgeable on these topics than I). I look forward to seeing this microscopic cross-section of my questions list answered! Thanks!