Stuck on evolution

[Ellie]

It's not me.

I have a friend who can read here, who has felt God drawing them lately and has been experiencing his power in their life. But when they consider Chrisitanity, they are "stuck on the evolution thing". They are highly interested in science and history and are finding it hard to get passed this in order to fully commit themselves to Christ.

Please, please don't turn this thread into a debate that will put off my dear friend that God has been so tenderly drawing near after a lot of hardship.

I was explaining to my friend that the body of Christ is made up of people with different roles, and while my natural tendancy to be a listener and a validator may be comforting to them, they need to reach out to other people who will be better able to accomodate their needs in other areas.

What I am asking for are thought-provoking questions, (possibly what my friend maybe asking themselves so that others can post here and try to answer those questions) and information from knowledgeable people that will hold an interest with my friend that will lead them to truth and life. Please understand this objective and refrian from contentiousness that will do the opposite. If you're objective is not promoting Christ, please could you start another thread or something.

Thankyou so much I really appreciate any helpful imput anyone might have.

 

[FreedomFighter827]

Your friend may be asking why the Bible says the earth has been around for X number of years, yet Carbon dating has been around for Y number of years which is a significantly larger Figure, you may want to mention that the current way we work out time was not designed until 500years after Christ arrived and died, as such comparing them would provide misleading information as Carbon dating measures time using years as we know them, yet the Bible measures time using the system used at the time of that part of the Bible making them impossible to compare as X is a variable.

Is that the sort of thing you were after or would you like me to try again?

 

[Devolution]

Hello Ellie,

Does your friend believe in ghosts? If so, then ask him how that is possible with evolution? Nice and simple starter.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I think your friend would be interested in watching this video: [link] The God Who is There: Part 1. The God Who Made Everything - The Gospel Coalition [link]

(The rest of the videos in that 14 part series are also very good, it's an excellent resource for new Christians or for non-Christians who are interested in the basic worldview of Christianity.)

In the above video, the speaker gets into the question about the creation narrative in Genesis 1 and modern science. Basically, he says that there is room for different interpretations of Genesis.

I think the speaker is absolutely right. One can be a Christian and still accept evolution and still believe the first chapter of Genesis, 100%. I don't believe that it is an either/or issue: either you are a Christian or you believe in evolution. And so I think that if we tell a person that they must reject evolution in order to accept Christ we are putting an unnecessary stumbling block in their path.

Let me explain briefly some of the different ways that Christians understand Genesis 1 (some of what I say here is covered in the above video):

1) The literal 24-hour view. This view says that each of the days in Genesis are literal 24 hour periods that followed one after another and the earth is relatively young (maybe 10,000 years). The people who adhere to this view are usually called Young Earth Creationists (or YECers for short). Since this is the most controversial view and most well known, I'll spend a little on it here:

The idea that the earth was only 6,000 years old was arrived at by adding up the genealogies recorded in Genesis. However, today virtually all YECers (who keep up to speed with their field) admit that there are gaps in the genealogies. The easiest way to see this is to look at the genealogies and see that they qualify themselves with "and he had other sons and daughters" (e.g. Gen. 5:4) and the Hebrew term can mean something like descendant rather than direct parentage. So we can't simply count back the genealogies to arrive at a date of 6,000 years ago. However, even if we allow for a lot of gaps in the genealogies, we still have an earth that is much younger than the 4.5 billion year old earth that most scientists believe in.

2) The day-age view. This view says that the Hebrew word (yom) that our English Bibles translate as "day" should really be understood to mean "age". An age is a long but unspecified period of time. So God created the universe through a period of six ages. This view can accommodate a 4.5 billion year old earth and for some evolution. However, there is a lot of debate over whether it is appropriate to understand the Hebrew term "yom" as age rather than day. No one denies that "yom" can mean something like an unspecified "age," but they doubt whether it can reasonably be said to mean this when the word is accompanied by a phrase like "there was evening and morning" that we find in Genesis 1.

3) The Gap Theory. This theory says that there is a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. Basically, God created everything billions and billions of years ago (about 13 according to modern science, I think) then the narrative in Genesis fast-forwards or jumps ahead in verse 2 to God's re-creation of the world. This view can accommodate a 4.5 billion year old earth, but I don't know that its adherents usually accept evolution. This view was popular among a certain sect of Christianity for a short period of time, but it's currently the least popular view I would say.

4) The Framework view. This view says that the creation narrative is a literary framework structured around a week, but this "week" doesn't actually correspond to a temporal sequence. I'm not very familiar with this view.

There are other views (the analogical view, an alternative day-age view, etc), but these are the ones you will usually run into. My point here is not to start a debate on which one has the best argument or to persuade anyone to choose one of these views. My point is only to inform that there are differences among Christians even where they try to remain faithful to the biblical text. Not every Christian who believes in evolution disbelieves in the book of Genesis. It's not necessarily an either/or.

However, I will say that Darwinism (which I'll say is the idea that chance and unguided natural processes are sufficient to account for all that we see) is incompatible with Christianity. The fact that there is room for disagreement in Genesis and the age of the earth and even regarding evolution does not mean that there are no lines that have to be drawn. But I've made this post long enough as it is, so that's all I'll say.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

One can be a Christian and still accept evolution and still believe the first chapter of Genesis, 100%. I don't believe that it is an either/or issue: either you are a Christian or you believe in evolution. And so I think that if we tell a person that they must reject evolution in order to accept Christ we are putting an unnecessary stumbling block in their path.

I would add here that it is important for a Christian to arrive at their view using Scripture as their highest authority. Things like science, logic, and experience can be authorities, but for the Christian (or the Protestant Christian anyway) they are lesser authorities than the direct verbal revelation of God contained in Scripture. So a Christian struggling with this issue needs first and foremost to be faithful to Scripture and not make Scripture say something just because modern science forces them to say something. This includes making Scripture in Genesis 1 irrelevant to modern scientific statements like Stephen Gould and Peter Enns and others do.

 

[contemplative]

I have a friend who can read here, who has felt God drawing them lately and has been experiencing his power in their life. But when they consider Chrisitanity, they are "stuck on the evolution thing". They are highly interested in science and history and are finding it hard to get passed this in order to fully commit themselves to Christ.

I would suggest, then, that they try a partial commitment. I personally do not know anybody who, on conversion, swallowed the whole of the faith in its entirety. If we insisted that every new believer accept all things instantly, it would be disastrous. It would be like shoving meat down the throat of an infant. For everyone there are aspects of Christianity which are difficult to accept.

Besides, Jesus did not spend the majority of his time talking about creation or evolution. If an evolutionist were to truly practice the Beatitudes (Matthew 5-7), disregarding anything he found scientifically offensive, he would be a welcome addition to the fringe of the community of Jesus' disciples. If a person takes Jesus' teachings seriously, disregarding what they don't personally like, what is left will still keep him busy. I would much rather see an evolutionist practice a portion of Jesus' teachings than have a Christian merely assent to all of them.

After all, the evolutionist still has to struggle with forgiveness, pride, lust, and anger. Getting stuck on one aspect of faith is like refusing to fill your shopping cart with food because the grocer doesn't have the green grapes you wanted. There is still a satisfying offering if one is willing to temporarily tolerate the dissonance.

 

[Slepsog4]

a day has been a day from creation (evening and morning)
a week has been a week from creation (7 days)
seasons have been seasons from creation as has been years (sun, moon, and stars for signs seasons, days, and years)

Month based on the cycle of the moon
Year based on the cycle of the earth and sun

 

[serpentslayer]

Ellie,
i, like your friend, have always had a great interest and science, and i also struggled with this question on evolution; but, i found two scriptures which helped me immensely. I do not have my Bible (KJV) handy, but the first is found in Eccl, and the other in II Tim. the first sayd the man cannot know all the GOD has done from the Beginning to the End; and the second said to avoid oppositions of science, whihc is falsleu called so.
You see, we cannot ever know the full truth of creation, and , because man's science is quite fallible (history proves this), science can never confirm or deny it. From this, we see that NASA's main goal is a fool's quest, even their search for life elsewhere in the universe (i think they are stroking their ego's, keeping all confused (some phd's say white, others say black), and spend our money foolishly shooting things out into deep space.

I suggest you take out a clean white sheet of paper and begin Genesis 1 again, drawing (frame by frame) all God made, in hte order HE made it. I say start with white because GOD is light, and therefore, since it was just HIM before the Beginning, all was GOD and all was light. The next thing you should draw is a black blob in the middle, representing the first earth HE created (the second earth was created from a smaller protion of the first earth - the waters under the heaven-, once gravity acted upon it ), which i call the waters of creation because everything material in the universe is made from these waters, even man.

The final picture should be the physical earth surrounded by the space of the universe which is filled with all the cosmological bodies; which is then surrounded by the 'waters above the firmament' (being the boundary of the universe; which is surrounded by the first heaven, where GOD is.

 

[giantone]

Evolution is either the truth or it is an outright lie, You would be surprised at how many things people believe that are completely opposite to the truth. the Evolutionist claim dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, then why are they in the Bible, (there is a thread on that somewhere on this forum). The thought that cave men went unga bunga seems false since the most complex languages are from the oldest languages. The Bible says creation is falling apart, the evolutionist says it is getting more complex.

I thought of an old commercial, it was for Resse's Peanut butter cups candy it goes like this:

A man was walking eating a chocolate bar not paying attention and walks into another person who is eating a jar of peanut butter and he goes "hey! you got peanut butter on my chocolate!" and the other person says "No!, You got chocolate on my peanut butter!"

And through this happy little accident Reese's Peanut butter cups was born.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

Ellie:
But when they consider Chrisitanity, they are "stuck on the evolution thing". They are highly interested in science and history and are finding it hard to get passed this in order to fully commit themselves to Christ.


trust_in_the_name:
As a follower of Christ, I also believe that science yields accurate information about the physical world. I've found no problem between the two whatsoever.

The "evolution thing" is not something your friend has any reason to be stuck up on. The theory of evolution is a vital, indispensible tool used by working scientists on a daily basis to make real, lasting contributions to the quality of life of people everywhere, and if your friend has an interest in science or a related field (such as mathematics, engineering, or medicine), she should pursue it.

Believing in Christ doesn't mean disbelieving in science.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

The Bible says creation is falling apart, the evolutionist says it is getting more complex.

No offense, but I have to correct that one. Science says that order is decreasing, and disorder is increasing. That's the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[contemplative]

No offense, but I have to correct that one. Science says that order is decreasing, and disorder is increasing. That's the second law of thermodynamics.

And science isn't even sure it's anything more than a local phenomenon. We're not even sure entropy increases on all scales, much less everywhere and at all times. The mathematical proof by which the physical law of increasing entropy is often "proven" assumes there's an arrow to time and that all causality follows it.

These days, laws are convenient methods to teach schoolchildren. Real physicists understand there are more difficult questions to answer. The pity is that the ideas and results are so complex they'll never be communicated as popular science.

 

[giantone]

No offense, but I have to correct that one. Science says that order is decreasing, and disorder is increasing. That's the second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot about the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Solidfaith]

I completely disagree with an above poster. It is NOT valid for Christians to hold the view that Evolution is a valid theory in any way.

Trying to say Evolution is in any way compatible with Scripture is a common modern heresy known as 'theistic Evolution'. In most Christian circles it is also known as 'progressive creationism'. It doesn't matter what you call it, it is false, period.

There are so many arguments against the point of view that these can be compatible, but we really only need some basic info to show that Christianity/the Bible are not compatible with Evolution.

I will only post one reason here for time's sake, but if need be we can continue this discussion further.

Let me explain in a simple way... Evolution involves 'survival of the fittest'. This requires for Death to occur to weaker lifeforms, and for more fit ones to continue on in order to pass on their genes. This is common knowledge, and it is completely incompatible:

We know from the Bible that the wages of Sin is Death.

Death did not enter the world until the Fall, after Adam and Eve sinned.

If there was no Death until Sin and the Fall, it is simply not possible to have man evolve from anything to that point. Period.

The Bible is true and right. Scripture stands on it's own authority on this subject and all others. Trying to mix Evolution with Biblical faith quickly leads to other compromises of the text, and further heresy.

If you want some awesome information on this and other creationists related topics, please refer your friend to an awesome ministry known as Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics , another page I love that discusses these topics was made by a brilliant engineer and marketing guru Perry Marshall. No, he's not a scientist himself but his arguments have yet to be refuted. That page is here: Perry Marshall - Origin of the Universe

These ministries are great examples of people combating this modern heresy. It is spreading very rapidly these days because of heretical groups who claim to be Christian, but in fact promote a plethora of heresies under a Christian 'banner'. The most bothersome is known as BioLogos, but I will not link them since they are very dangerous and filled with false teachings.

 

[Solidfaith]

Also, some things you may want to point out to your friend to get the discussion going would be very basic at first. I usually take the approach that shows the foundation of Evolution to be false.

Ask these simple questions to get going...

1) Where is the Geologic Column located?

2) Where is the Fossil Record located?

You will find if you look into these topics that both of those foundational pieces of Evolution theory ONLY EXIST IN TEXTBOOKS.

They can only be drawn, or diagrammed in fact as they are not present physically ANYWHERE in the known world.

There have been multiple attempts to show they were real, but in every single case when follow-up teams of scientists visited those proposed locations, they were proven to be false as rock layers and fossils nearby have been shown to be 'jumbled up'; proving those attempts to be hoaxes.

I love this topic. This is just a starter. Best of luck.

If any of you wish to discuss this with me, I'm game, but don't expect you're beloved theory to make it out in tact is all I'm sayin'

Evil-ution as many of us like to call it is false.

Period.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I completely disagree with an above poster. It is NOT valid for Christians to hold the view that Evolution is a valid theory in any way.

Trying to say Evolution is in any way compatible with Scripture is a common modern heresy known as 'theistic Evolution'. In most Christian circles it is also known as 'progressive creationism'. It doesn't matter what you call it, it is false, period.

There are so many arguments against the point of view that these can be compatible, but we really only need some basic info to show that Christianity/the Bible are not compatible with Evolution.

I will only post one reason here for time's sake, but if need be we can continue this discussion further.

Let me explain in a simple way... Evolution involves 'survival of the fittest'. This requires for Death to occur to weaker lifeforms, and for more fit ones to continue on in order to pass on their genes. This is common knowledge, and it is completely incompatible:

We know from the Bible that the wages of Sin is Death.

Death did not enter the world until the Fall, after Adam and Eve sinned.

If there was no Death until Sin and the Fall, it is simply not possible to have man evolve from anything to that point. Period.

The Bible is true and right. Scripture stands on it's own authority on this subject and all others. Trying to mix Evolution with Biblical faith quickly leads to other compromises of the text, and further heresy.

If you want some awesome information on this and other creationists related topics, please refer your friend to an awesome ministry known as Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics , another page I love that discusses these topics was made by a brilliant engineer and marketing guru Perry Marshall. No, he's not a scientist himself but his arguments have yet to be refuted. That page is here: Perry Marshall - Origin of the Universe

These ministries are great examples of people combating this modern heresy. It is spreading very rapidly these days because of heretical groups who claim to be Christian, but in fact promote a plethora of heresies under a Christian 'banner'. The most bothersome is known as BioLogos, but I will not link them since they are very dangerous and filled with false teachings.

I'm not sure if any of this was to me, but I would like to point out that I agree that theistic evolution, if understood as Darwinism as I defined it in my post, and the garbage that Biologos promotes are incompatible with Christianity (that much should have been clear as I mentioned specifically that I didn't think the views promoted by someone like Peter Enns, who is a common contributor to Biologos, are compatible with Christianity). However, I distinguish between evolution and Darwinism. One can admit that evolution occurs without admitting other things like common descent (that all life forms, including humans, evolved from a more primitive ancestor). However, some Christians who argue against "Darwinism" still affirm common descent. Michael Behe, famous for his Darwin's Black Box, is an example.

Certain issues related to this controversy are foundational issues to the faith. One of these issues would be the historicity of Adam (which Enns and most everyone at Biologos deny). But other issues, like whether the days are roughly 24 hour periods or thousands of years are not foundational issues and we should not go to war over it and start labeling people heretics over it. This is also an odd issue in that a position should sometimes be opposed not because the ideas themselves are dangerous but because the spirit in which they are held is dangerous (science playing a magisterial role over Scripture). I'm glad that Enns got kicked out of Westminster for his views and I'm glad Bruce Waltke got removed from Reformed Theological Seminary for his views. But we need to sift through the issues more carefully and make finer distinctions than simply "Young Earth Creationist vs. Everything Else Besides Young Earth (in other words the heretics)."

 

[NoahsDad]

Evolution is either the truth or it is an outright lie, You would be surprised at how many things people believe that are completely opposite to the truth. the Evolutionist claim dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, then why are they in the Bible, (there is a thread on that somewhere on this forum). The thought that cave men went unga bunga seems false since the most complex languages are from the oldest languages. The Bible says creation is falling apart, the evolutionist says it is getting more complex.

I thought of an old commercial, it was for Resse's Peanut butter cups candy it goes like this:

A man was walking eating a chocolate bar not paying attention and walks into another person who is eating a jar of peanut butter and he goes "hey! you got peanut butter on my chocolate!" and the other person says "No!, You got chocolate on my peanut butter!"

And through this happy little accident Reese's Peanut butter cups was born.

FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!! I was thinkin the same thing as I read this post.....
hahahahahahahahahahaa
mmmmmmmmmmmmm peeeeaaaaannuuuttttt buuuuuuuter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Crazy4GODword]

Well I do not believe in human evolution, and if their was in my opinion then why is their monkey still on this earth? Well pretty much in my opinion I do not believe in human evolution but man who GOD created in His Image.


GBU friends

 

[Lecrae]

Although this video is slightly lengthy it provides great explanations for creationism.

YouTube - Creation Is A Scientific Fact - Final Cut

 

[Solidfaith]

I'm not sure if any of this was to me, but I would like to point out that I agree that theistic evolution, if understood as Darwinism as I defined it in my post, and the garbage that Biologos promotes are incompatible with Christianity (that much should have been clear as I mentioned specifically that I didn't think the views promoted by someone like Peter Enns, who is a common contributor to Biologos, are compatible with Christianity). However, I distinguish between evolution and Darwinism. One can admit that evolution occurs without admitting other things like common descent (that all life forms, including humans, evolved from a more primitive ancestor). However, some Christians who argue against "Darwinism" still affirm common descent. Michael Behe, famous for his Darwin's Black Box, is an example.

Certain issues related to this controversy are foundational issues to the faith. One of these issues would be the historicity of Adam (which Enns and most everyone at Biologos deny). But other issues, like whether the days are roughly 24 hour periods or thousands of years are not foundational issues and we should not go to war over it and start labeling people heretics over it. This is also an odd issue in that a position should sometimes be opposed not because the ideas themselves are dangerous but because the spirit in which they are held is dangerous (science playing a magisterial role over Scripture). I'm glad that Enns got kicked out of Westminster for his views and I'm glad Bruce Waltke got removed from Reformed Theological Seminary for his views. But we need to sift through the issues more carefully and make finer distinctions than simply "Young Earth Creationist vs. Everything Else Besides Young Earth (in other words the heretics)."

I am realizing now how much we do actually agree on most things after re-reading your posts; so I apologize for my mistaken assertion that you were proposing something that you actually weren't. I see now that we both oppose 'Theistic Evolution and/or Progressive Creationism'.

As for the rest of the content of my posts, I do stand by those things for sure.

I am still undecided as to how to deal with categorizing those who oppose the 24 hour days of creation. I would definitely say people who oppose the 24 hour days of creation are wrong to say the least. I'd also contend that because Genesis is so foundational (isn't it ALL though, really?!), if it's not a heresy to disagree about that, that it is the next closest thing to it.

For one thing, I am pretty sure God knows what a day is. After all, just a couple verses earlier he sets up what a day and night are. People who doubt the Word of God essentially have a faith issue in my opinion. God says what He means to say, and we don't have wiggle room to claim He isn't saying what He says...

To go with Gap theory or something like that requires messing with the text, or in the least inserting extra information and ideas that simply aren't there.

In Exodus the literal days of creation is re-iterated as well. Also, has anyone who ever proposed it is some longer period than a day thought about the Old Testament, and the Sabbath commandment?!

This further proves it is actual 24 hour days... could you imagine taking a 1000 year Sabbath - or longer?!

I think it also should be known that historically, the majority of Biblical Christians have held the view of a literal Creation week.

Anyhow, I'm sorry if I was confused earlier about your postings, and I apologize for that; but this is real important stuff to be sure.

Genesis is awesome, and like the rest of Scripture; is profitable for all teaching and direction. Thanks for your reply earlier, I hope you are having a great day