What are the evidences against natural selection and random mutations explaining the complexity of life?

Yes, and that’s why Intelligent Design is called a “science stopper.”

2 Likes

Hi Larry,

Three points from reading through your responses, including to me:

  1. I see that you’re interacting with many people simultaneously and I don’t expect you to answer every question from every post. I, though, would have liked that you answered my question about whether one can be a loving, productive follower of Christ and accept biological evolution, since the question speaks to the crux of your view that evolution will destroy the Christian faith. For one, the ToE has been around for ~160 years now and it hasn’t ruined the faith yet. But allow me to answer it, it’s yes! I know because consider myself to be a giving, sacrificial and devoted Christian and many here are as well. Since there are now millions of believers who accept evolution, and more every year, I wonder where your opinion that the ToE is ruining Christianity comes from.

  2. What did I struggle with before I was convinced of an old earth? Not being brought up with the bible (I and almost everyone I knew were Catholic), I always thought the earth was old. I wasn’t comfortable with evolution, though, because we were taught an historic Adam and Eve (which is interesting, seeing that evolution is the Catholic Church’s official doctrine of human creation).

  3. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming and undeniable even if we don’t know how we developed consciousness. If you want to say that God, “magically” did, he could have done it that to an evolved homo sapien.

3 Likes

Maybe this has been clarified already (I haven’t made it through the whole thread yet), but BioLogos exists to encourage thoughtful conversation about the harmony between mainstream science and orthodox Christian faith. The belief statement of the organization is found here: Beyond that basic statement, it is a big tent, and just because something is held out for discussion in a blog post, it doesn’t mean that everyone who agrees with the very general BioLogos belief statement would agree with every detail. Sometimes the various posts in a single series present mutually exclusive interpretations and views.

3 Likes

Pretty much. My previous view was not based on scientific evidence. It was based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. When science was referenced, it was ad hoc, misinterpreted, or flat out inaccurate. The scientific evidence was what made me change my mind. My previous view was only supported by Bible verses and speculations about their implications.

1 Like

@Hisword

All you are doing is making it quite clear that many Christians grow up in the Young Earth “bubble” … with no real thought as to why they they should be a “convinced Young Earther” … which is certainly not because nobody has been making the effort to convince young “Young Earthers” !!!

It is a hollow worldview, with the power of the Almighty in the distance, but no coherent body of evidence to support it, and a Mack Truck of reality is bearing down at you from the off-ramp of the Interstate …

3 Likes

@Richard_Wright1 Thanks and you are correct, it is impossible to reply to everyone while holding a demanding job which is why I’m just getting back to the topic that I started. However, my statement was actually related to the reliability of the scripture not destroying the faith, [quote=“Hisword, post:29, topic:36424”]
I am convinced that the logical result of the movement of evolutionary creationism will destroy the reliability of the scripture and if unchecked will result in the next generation to fully reject the bible.
[/quote] [quote=“Richard_Wright1, post:103, topic:36424”]
your view that evolution will destroy the Christian faith.
[/quote]
Tim Keller puts it this way.
“If you hold to the view that Adam and Eve were not literal, and you realize the
author of Genesis was probably trying to teach us that Adam and Eve were real people who sinned, and
that Paul certainly was, then you have to face the implications for how you read Scripture. You may say,
“Well, the Biblical authors were ‘men of their time’ and were wrong about something they were trying to
teach readers.” The obvious question is, “how will we know which parts of the Bible to trust and which
not?”
I am not arguing something so crude as “if you don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then you
don’t believe in the authority of the Bible!” I contended above that we cannot take every text in the Bible
literally. But the key for interpretation is the Bible itself. I don’t believe Genesis 1 can be taken literally
because I don’t think the author expected us to. But Paul is different. He most definitely wanted to teach us
that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a Biblical author literally when he
clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the Biblical
authority. As I said above, that doesn’t mean you can’t have a strong, vital faith yourself, but I believe such
a move can be bad for the church as a whole, and it certainly can lead to confusion on the part of
laypeople.”

Keller does not question the faith of those that hold to a different view (YES I KNOW KELLER IS AN OLD EARTHER) but his point is a crucial one as it relates to whether you believe the bible is true or not.

For instance, when the bible says in Jude 14-15
_It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Jude clearly believes Adam was a real historical figure and the counting down from Adam through Seth follows
Gen 5:1 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

So, those that don’t believe Adam was an historical figure must deal with this problem in addition to what Paul said about Eve.

2 Corinthians 11:3 _
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ._

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

Richard, do you believe Adam and Eve were historical people?

I think if you look at Paul’s statement in context, you will find that that is a mis-characterization of what he is saying. He definitely wanted to teach us that we are all sinners, and while he assumed as all did in his time that Adam was a specific individual, that was not remotely his point.
It is something to think about in Romans 5:16: Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

@jpm I think you are responding to what Tim Keller said which has no context related to what he says about Paul. He makes a general statement that says Paul taught that Adam was a real individual. [quote=“Hisword, post:107, topic:36424”]
Tim Keller puts it this way.
[/quote] Then Keller still speaking says [quote=“Hisword, post:107, topic:36424”]
“I don’t believe Genesis 1 can be taken literally
because I don’t think the author expected us to. But Paul is different. He most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures.”
[/quote]

Keller is talking about Paul’s overall teaching related to Adam.

My comment follows [quote=“Hisword, post:107, topic:36424”]
Keller does not question the faith of those that hold to a different view (YES I KNOW KELLER IS AN OLD EARTHER) but his point is a crucial one as it relates to whether you believe the bible is true or not.
[/quote]

I simply add the weight of Jude mentioning Enoch in Adam’s lineage and Paul’s statements that discuss Eve as she is a real person.

Do you believe Paul taught that Adam was an historical person?

@glipsnort I recant the statement I made about CERN concluding there is no God.

I do stand by the belief that the scientific community as a whole within fields related to origins is opposed to God and His rule and all of their conclusions related to origins are therefore biased.

That community includes tens of thousands of Christian scientists. Why would they be opposed to God?

1 Like

@gbrooks9 Reading Genesis as Israel/The Church has for 6,000 years [quote=“gbrooks9, post:106, topic:36424”]
is a hollow worldview
[/quote]

I think somebody burned their toast. Don’t worry, be happy.

1 Like

@T_aquaticus You do understand what [quote=Hisword, post:111, topic:36424"]
as a whole
[/quote]

means. I doubt very seriously the thousands that you speak of are much of a majority. Are there many bible studies being held at the Max Plank Institute? Correct me if I’m wrong.

According to recent surveys, Christians make up about 30-40% of physicists and biologists in the US. If there is a community wide bias against God in science, then that means tens of thousands of Christian scientists are either participating in it or keeping quiet. I don’t find that to be very believable.

1 Like

“The scientific community as a whole” really has no position and offers no opinion on God. In that sense, it has a lot in common with the farming community, and the fishing community. No sure about the golfing community, as his name comes up a lot on golf courses, but somehow don’t think that counts.

3 Likes

What do you think that % was in 1950? In your opinion is the scientific community trending up or down in their belief in Christ?

I am more interested in why you think tens of thousands of Christians in the sciences are hostile towards God. Perhaps they are just hostile towards creationism?

2 Likes

OK, let’s all pretend that the secularization of the scientific community is not happening and have a good ole laugh about the state of faith around us.

You know full well I didn’t say Christian scientists are hostile toward God!

@jpm and @T_aquaticus I have come to the conclusion you have no desire to discuss serious things so I will not waste my time any further.

Peace Out

I know full well that you did:

The scientific community as a whole necessarily includes all Christian scientists.

Do you not understand what “as a whole” means, Larry?

2 Likes