Should Christians Concede to Evolution????

Question

Okay, I just read yet ANOTHER question about evolution.
I also read a VERY interesting article today and started to think, 'you know, who cares?'. I mean, it isn't really evolution we should be worried about, is it? It's whether we were created via Intelligent Design.

So....if Christians could concede the idea of evolution (PLEASE read this: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/37.74.html ) then how would our discussions change?

Evolutionists, are you atheists as well? Would Intelligent Design be just as serious an issue for you as 'instant creation without evolution'?

Atheists, I'm curious as to your reaction to the article in regard to the quotes from Francis Collins and Freeman Dyson.

Have at it.

To the first three ladies who responded, thanks so much for taking the time to actually READ the article before spitting out some answers....shows how seriously you took my question....

PLEASE NOTE SARCASM HERE.

Answer 1

I really appreciate your want for the truth and the fact that the sunject of evolutions has so many facets. I did read the CT article and found it as alarming as much of what is coming out of CT these days.

If we give an inch to the Darwinsits we then allow the writtne Word of very God Himself to be second to science. The creator of science knows much more than the object and system He created. To give to ID is to also to not place all of our faith and trust into the 7 day litteral creation written of in scripture. We cannot, as God did not use and evolutionary process to speak into being the world as we know it.

The problem is that we are not looking at the correct avenue of attack. The weak spot in the obervable Darwinsitic approach is that they often do not recognize that FAITH is just as much the core of Darwinism as is the core of biblical christianity. The chief and ruler of the Darwinistic viewpoint is a man named Dr. Jay Gould. He passed awat a few years ago but is still ruling the filed from the grave. Gould admitted that Faith is indeed the center of the issue. It takes just aqs much faith to believe that there is a mising link that glues vertical transitional life forms together in a specie as it does to believe that God and His son Jesus Christ created the world in 7 litteral days as the bible says. We must stand firm, loving the Darwinist and his faith in nothing to the truth in God, Chirst, and the bible. Science does not get in the way but rather stands to validate all that God did so long ago.

Stick to your guns and to your bible. Do not give an inch as that is when they and others will want a mile. If we give on that point then soon homosexuality, adultery, and murder will be sanctioned by a watered down view of scripture.

Answer 2

Well...
No, I don't think Christians should "concede" to evolution...in the sense that they should "agree that it is true"...

Scientifically speaking, there is a great amount of evidence to suggest that macroevolution is a bunch of bunk. Along the same line of thought as the article you posted is the book "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel. I am halfway through it right now, and find it a very interesting book!

I, as a Christian, am in search for the truth. I will not 'concede' that something is true when I do not think it is true. And right now, I see NO evidence for the reality of macroevolution (microevolution, of course, is true...).

The Big Bang and the Theory of Relativity necessitate a beginning to the universe. And that which has a beginning, must have a Creator...i.e. science is now LEADING us to the unavoidable conclusion of intelligent design!

But the bigger questions for "evolution" are: does the account in Genesis contradict the theory of macroevolution...? For if so, then both cannot be true. But if not, then it really makes no difference...

As pointed out by another answerer, Galileo was put in jail for his "heretical" teaching that the earth revolved around the sun.

In the end, Galileo was proven right...and the Catholic church leaders were proven wrong. HOWEVER, it made no difference because neither view contradicted what the Bible said.

The Christians who opposed Galileo made assumptions that ended up making them look pretty foolish.

And CONTRARY to another answerer, the BIBLE does NOT state that the earth is the center of the solar system...or the center of the universe.

-
The current pertinent questions are:
Does the Bible definitively indicate that macroevolution did not occur? That is, if macroevolution is true, does it contradict the Bible?

I, personally, am not ready to go out on a limb and say, "Yes" - although...I do lean towards it based on what I read in the first two chapters of Genesis (likes begetting likes, after their own manner...)

But then again, there is much that I don't know or understand about the Bible and what it says...and pray the Lord give me wisdom, understanding, and discernment!

-
But, I agree somewhat with your sentiment...

For some reason, atheists make the following conclusion:
If all that I can see can be explained without the "necessity" of a Creator, then it therefore proves that a Creator does not exist.

But quite frankly, this is a logical fallacy - and patently unscientific.

If a Creator created something, then there was a way in which He created it. If man learns HOW the Creator created, it does not mean that a Creator does not exist...it merely helps man understand more about the creation...and the Creator! For the creation is, in itself, a revelation of the Creator Himself.

As it is, God works through MANY natural processes...and in and through His creation - even in and through man! Thus the atheist says, "nature and man have done this" while the Christian says, "God is sovereign...and has done this in and through nature and man".

The event is "explained" by an atheist without them "seeing" the hand of God...but that does not mean that the hand of God was non-existant!

-
Grace and peace in Christ!

Answer 3

Both the Bible and good philosophy report that God is non-physical - spirit. In John 4:24 it is said that God is spirit (see also Luke 24:39; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). This is why no material thing was to be used to represent God (Exodus 20:4). But this can also be shown by reflecting on what God is. Philosophically the same truth comes through. All that is created is necessarily finite and limited. But the first cause (God) is uncreated, and therefore must be non-finite, or infinite. That which is beyond the finite must, by definition, be infinite, and the Bible states that God is beyond creation (1 Kings 8:27; Job 11:7-9; Isaiah 66:1-2; Colossians 1:17). That which is physical cannot be infinite - for you cannot add finite parts together until they reach infinity. Therefore God is spirit as opposed to physical/material in His Being. This does not mean He cannot localize a physical appearance. God is not composed of matter nor any other imaginable substance. He also cannot be measured, is not spatial, and has no true location (presence is a different concept). Evolutionists cannot explain simple things like evil, why we feel naked or fulfilled prophecy. Nor can they explain "irreducible complexity." Basically, I believe that evolution is nothing more than God's way of creating. A "day" to an eternal being could be millions of years.

Answer 4

I am an atheist who happens to have studied evolution to enough detail to speak intelligently about many aspects of it. Not all atheists are interested in biology and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Also, not all biologists are atheists.

There is definitely a reason that more biologists are atheists than anyone else however. When you spend enough time considering how exactly we came to be and why we are as we are and you start to fill in those gaps that are normally filled by "God is mysterious", you can't help but come to a few conclusions about religion.

You are correct that evolution and creation are not the same thing. Abiogenesis is what the author of the article is actually refering to throughout most of the article. However, intelligent design and evolution are quite incompatible. Evolution does not have an end goal in mind that is assumed with the concept of intelligent design. In fact, if one wanted to design a species one would assume we would have far fewer frailties than we do. You could say something like "well maybe we aren't done evolving" but that too is missing the point. Evolution does not necessitate that we are becoming less frail or more complex. Evolution is simply however genes can best propogate themselves by expressing themselves through their host organism. The organism in question could actually be more effective in propogating those genes by becoming smaller, less complex and more frail (take a mosquito for example in comparison to dinosaurs). The whole concept that nature has a direction, which is implied by intelligent design, is at odds with the theory of evolution.

I think the quote about finding junk DNA in out mitochondria from Collins is bang on. This would not be around were nature set in place by an intelligent designer. There are many more examples like that.

The author of this article seems, to me anyways, to be doing his best to reconcile what his logical mind is telling him, that evolution is true and has nothing to do with a creator, and what he has been brainwashed to believe. It's obvious he is still holding disdain for science and that he bothered reprinting that a creationist "Discovery Institute" (a misnomer if ever there was one) said fossil evidence has been troublesome for evolution is ridiculous. The fossil record is quite clear in many respects and every time it becomes more clear it has supported evolution.

I'm sorry but scientific thought and religious thought are in no way compatible despite what anyone says. One is based entirely on evidence, reason and scrutability/falsifiability and the other is based on whatever your parents or priest told you just because that's what they happen to believe.

Think of all the things you can thank science for: air conditioning, medicine, a longer life span, clean food and water, clothing, transportation, a man on the moon, the internet, television, and thousands of other things. Now give me an example of a single thing of value that the concept of God has brought to this Earth. The only thing that could be mentioned is hope but I would argue that no hope is better than false hope.

Answer 5

Actually Intelligent Design is a reasonable scientific hypthesis. The fact is some people do not like the implications of such a theory. But there is a difference between a theory and its implications. Big Bang is an acceptable scientific theory that has religious implications. If there is a beginning then there must have been a cause. To label that religion doesn't negate it from being a scientific theory. There is much misunderstang and fear being generated by those who want to keep the public in the dark about what ID is saying and not saying which is why we find them making contradcitory statements by the likes of Douglas Futuyma who claims it canot be evaluated by the methods of science then a few pages later claims the evidence of intermediate stages in what are supposedly comlex structures provides a refutation. So according to him it isn't falsifiable and it has already been falsified? I would encourage reders to read the materials of those theorists presenting there ideas for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Answer 6

NO we should not. contrary to your article many professors that were Christians and lost their faith because of evolution are coming back to Christianity. Jesus refers to Genesis numerous times, are we going to doubt the words of Jesus too? Because that is what happens if we allow them to destroy Genesis through unsubstantiated assumptions. It is only recent that Christian scholars started challenging the beliefs of evolutionists, and we are proving that Genesis is true. New findings on genetics are showing that devolution is all that is present. Every mutation is negative, and does not show anyway for an advancement in a species. Not to mention a kind to kind change has never been shown. No missing links other than forgeries. No unbiased research by universities. The only way that the debate to truly be settled would be for academia to accept the possibility of Creation. That way we MIGHT be able to get an unbiased opinion. Its like the oil company researching pollution, who's side will they be on? There are too many people that loose their faith to these evolution myths to not oppose it.

As far as debating the evolution myth on Yahoo, I think its pointless when your dealing with closed minded fools on here. Yahoo atheists wont concede even when they are wrong. Its going to take 20 years for new information to trickle down to these "free-thinkers"

Answer 7

Evolution is the opposite of Creationism, but not the opposite of the idea that God created the Universe. Evolution explains a PROCESS, not how life began. You can believe in evolution and still believe in a god.

Why is evolution so controversial? It's no different than the Big Bang theory, and Christians don't hate the Big Bang theory as much as evolution even though it defies a strict interpretation of the Book of Genesis (as does Darwinism).

And finally, Intelligent Design is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You can call it a theological theory, but science requires proof, testing and peer review. There is proof that supports evolution. There is no proof to support creationism.

And Linda J: by your logic, Christians should abandon their faith because of the horrible things done during the Spanish Inquisition.

Answer 8

Evolution is a scientific theory that explains scientific facts using the scientific method. It is a topic not covered in the bible.

The bible is revealed information not found using the scientific method. It is the source of Christian belief.

If you want to make evolution biblical, tell me the duration of time between creation and chaos, Genesis 1:1-2? You don't know, and frankly, it doesn't matter.

God who existed before He created everything you can observe is not found through science. You can have all the scientific theories that explains scientific facts using the scientific method and not one of them will be found in the bible. The bible is not a science or history text, but a religious text.

When I said that God can not be found through science, this means man's observation will not see God, this includes creationism.

Answer: Matt 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25. God's word said it three times

Answer 9

No Christians should not concede to evolution. We either believe God or we don't. He said he created it all in 6 days and I believe.

That reptile fish mentioned. Wasn't that the same fish that they have now found still alive and swimming at the bottom of the ocean?

I haven't seen any evidence of conceding to millions and billions of years for our earth or our universe. Everything shows that 6,000 years to 10,000 is more accurate than anything else.

The Bible states that our universe declares the glory of our Lord and God calls all of these stars by name.

Since when has science proved the Bible wrong? Science would do well in staying with the written Word of God and branching out from there.

Answer 10

No, I don't believe Christians should "concede" to evolution. The author of the article you referenced noted that "every science course I ever took assumed that we evolved from "primordial soup" in a random, purposeless process. No God required." I experienced the same thing in every science course I ever took. As long as the practical application of the theory of evolution is to deny the involvement of God in creation then every Christian should continue to fight against widespread dissemination of the theory! If and only if the theory of evolution can be separated from the theory of the origin of life should Christians be willing to accept it.

I don't reject the scientific evidence that supports some aspects of the theory of evolution. The concepts of adaptation to the enviornment, survival of the fittest, and even genetic mutation aren't inconsistent with the biblical story of creation. However, much of the other "evidence" rests on untestable assumptions and hypotheses and when that information IS inconsistent with the story of creation in the Bible, I object. Questions related to the true age of the universe (and the earth) have not been answered to my satisfaction by the tools of evolutionary science. I object to the circular reasoning used to "validate" the major methods of dating fossils (and other things). ...and most importantly, I object to any field of scientific study that attempts to "prove" that something is true while ignoring or dismissing evidence that it is false.