View Full Version : How do Christians respond to evolution?
NLSoldier
10-03-2005, 02:04 AM
I'm guessing this has been discussed on this forum in some other threads, but I dont get in here often enough to read every single one. So if there is a link that would help me that would be awesome.
I realize that Christians get around the incosistencies of evolution vs the creation stories by saying that genesis isnt meant to be taken literally, etc. But how do they get around the conflict between the randomness of evolution vs the intelligent design suggested by the bible?
Is there even an answer or do they just kind of ignore it? Do they simply reject the theory of evolution? What is the vaticans official position?
benjdm
10-03-2005, 03:40 AM
Googling 'theistic evolution', I get these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/
http://www.theisticevolution.org/
Hope they help. I have no idea on the vatican.
sexdrugsmoney
10-03-2005, 03:59 AM
How do Jews respond to evolution is a better question IMHO.
NLSoldier
10-03-2005, 04:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
How do Jews respond to evolution is a better question IMHO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I was raised christian but this forum is making me question my religion (i hope this makes your day david)....so thats why im more interested in the christian position.
sexdrugsmoney
10-03-2005, 04:26 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Well I was raised christian ... so thats why im more interested in the christian position.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is why I have qualms with "following the religion of your father".
vulturesrow
10-03-2005, 09:44 AM
Adam, Eve, and Evolution (http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp)
Jeff V
10-03-2005, 10:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But how do they get around the conflict between the randomness of evolution
[/ QUOTE ]
Could you clarify this for me?
Jeff
NotReady
10-03-2005, 10:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But how do they get around the conflict between the randomness of evolution vs the intelligent design suggested by the bible?
[/ QUOTE ]
You should say the "randomness preached by evolutionists", since they can't show that chance exists. There's no need to "get around" it since its existence can't be proved.
How do evolutionists get around the meaninglessness of the universe and the non-existence of morality if chance IS ultimate?
Peter666
10-03-2005, 11:36 AM
Micro evolution which is changes within a species is provable. Macro evolution, which is changes from one species to another: eg: a fish turning into a bird, has no proof.
Hasn't DNA already proven that mankind comes from an original stock of 2 people (Adam and Eve)?
[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't DNA already proven that mankind comes from an original stock of 2 people (Adam and Eve)?
[/ QUOTE ]
Which Christian rag did you read that in?
bluesbassman
10-03-2005, 12:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Micro evolution which is changes within a species is provable. Macro evolution, which is changes from one species to another: eg: a fish turning into a bird, has no proof.
Hasn't DNA already proven that mankind comes from an original stock of 2 people (Adam and Eve)?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's truly scary that there exist people who apparently believe the above.
Peter666
10-03-2005, 12:15 PM
Pravda
Paluka
10-03-2005, 12:15 PM
Most christians I know believe that god created a world and evolution is part of that world. they don't believe in any sort of literal Adam and Eve thing.
Georgia Avenue
10-03-2005, 12:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Most christians I know believe that god created a world and evolution is part of that world. they don't believe in any sort of literal Adam and Eve thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Micro evolution which is changes within a species is provable. Macro evolution, which is changes from one species to another: eg: a fish turning into a bird, has no proof.
Hasn't DNA already proven that mankind comes from an original stock of 2 people (Adam and Eve)?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's truly scary that there exist people who apparently believe the above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hes more or less right. Except I think we can all trace back to 1 man and 3 women, allthough not original in the adam and eve sense.
adam (https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html)
bluesbassman
10-03-2005, 12:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But how do they get around the conflict between the randomness of evolution vs the intelligent design suggested by the bible?
[/ QUOTE ]
You should say the "randomness preached by evolutionists", since they can't show that chance exists. There's no need to "get around" it since its existence can't be proved.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Chance is merely one component of evolution, namely on the molecular level (genetic mutations) and selection pressure due to the changing environment. Except for the inherent uncertainty on the quantum level, even these processes do follow cause and effect relationships, though they are so complicated that they appear to be random. And yes, genetic mutations and environmental perturbations can be measured and proved to be (approximate) random processes.
[ QUOTE ]
How do evolutionists get around the meaninglessness of the universe and the non-existence of morality if chance IS ultimate?
[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution, like all other scientific theories, has nothing to do with ethics. You might as well ask how chemists, geologists, and astronomers "get around" the supposed meaninglessness of the universe.
Nor are all those who accept evolution atheists. Many "evolutionists" are also christians who follow a biblical-based morality. Likewise, many atheists find profound meaning in the universe and follow a well-defined code of ethics.
How do theists get around the meaningless of living only to follow the inexplicable edicts of an incomprehensible "god?"
NotReady
10-03-2005, 12:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Chance is merely one component of evolution
[/ QUOTE ]
But that's the whole issue. If God is defined as all-powerful then chance can't exist.
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, genetic mutations and environmental perturbations can be measured and proved to be (approximate) random processes.
[/ QUOTE ]
How?
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution, like all other scientific theories, has nothing to do with ethics. You might as well ask how chemists, geologists, and astronomers "get around" the supposed meaninglessness of the universe.
[/ QUOTE ]
It has everything to do with ethics, if it happened by chance. The same is true if you teach coin flipping and insist that it is totally random whether heads or tails comes up. The notion of chance excludes omnipotence. The only possible exception would be that God permits chance but controls the effects. But why do evolutionists bring it up in the first place? Why not just be silent about ultimate cause? Why preach nihilism and then expect Christians to not respond?
[ QUOTE ]
How do theists get around the meaningless of living only to follow the inexplicable edicts of an incomprehensible "god?"
[/ QUOTE ]
I know no theist who believes this.
bluesbassman
10-03-2005, 12:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Micro evolution which is changes within a species is provable. Macro evolution, which is changes from one species to another: eg: a fish turning into a bird, has no proof.
Hasn't DNA already proven that mankind comes from an original stock of 2 people (Adam and Eve)?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's truly scary that there exist people who apparently believe the above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hes more or less right. Except I think we can all trace back to 1 man and 3 women, allthough not original in the adam and eve sense.
adam (https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html)
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm aware of this. I was referring to people who believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and who think that evolution had not been "proven."
Peter666
10-03-2005, 12:47 PM
You have proof of Macro evolution? I would like to see it please.
bluesbassman
10-03-2005, 01:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You have proof of Macro evolution? I would like to see it please.
[/ QUOTE ]
Proof is reserved for mathematical theorems, and once a theorem is proved, it never changes. Scientific theories, by contrast, may change according to the evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence (though strictly speaking no 'proof') that quantum mechanics accurately explains atomic scale physics, that general relativity accurately describes large scale physics (gravity), and that evolution accurately explains biodiversity.
A good summary of the evidence for the latter can be found at this page which outlines evidence for macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) .
bluesbassman
10-03-2005, 01:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chance is merely one component of evolution
[/ QUOTE ]
But that's the whole issue. If God is defined as all-powerful then chance can't exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you claim the existence of "god" forbids random processes? This fundamentally contradicts overwhelming experimental evidence from quantum physics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, genetic mutations and environmental perturbations can be measured and proved to be (approximate) random processes.
[/ QUOTE ]
How?
[/ QUOTE ]
Measure a certain variable in the process (such as the occurrece of genetic mutations), and show that the outcome approximates the mathematical definition of a random process. A precise definition of a random process can be found here:
Definition of a random process (http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~gray/arp.pdf)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution, like all other scientific theories, has nothing to do with ethics. You might as well ask how chemists, geologists, and astronomers "get around" the supposed meaninglessness of the universe.
[/ QUOTE ]
It has everything to do with ethics, if it happened by chance. The same is true if you teach coin flipping and insist that it is totally random whether heads or tails comes up. The notion of chance excludes omnipotence. The only possible exception would be that God permits chance but controls the effects. But why do evolutionists bring it up in the first place?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because genetic mutations are provably (approximate) random processes.
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just be silent about ultimate cause? Why preach nihilism and then expect Christians to not respond?
[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution is silent about an "ultimate cause" of the universe. Many of those who accept evolution also believe in god, and a subset of that group are christians. Evolution doesn't preach nihilism or any other ethical theory.
[ QUOTE ]
How do theists get around the meaningless of living only to follow the inexplicable edicts of an incomprehensible "god?"
[/ QUOTE ]
I know no theist who believes this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. And I know no atheist or evolutionist (many of whom are christians) who preach nihilism.
Why do you keep setting up this obvious straw man?
[ QUOTE ]
You have proof of Macro evolution? I would like to see it please.
[/ QUOTE ]
is it your belief that all species currently on Earth have existed in their present form since the beginning of life?
NotReady
10-03-2005, 02:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This fundamentally contradicts overwhelming experimental evidence from quantum physics.
[/ QUOTE ]
This begs the question, it doesn't prove ultimate chance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Definition of a random process
[/ QUOTE ]
Summarize. I give summaries of Biblical doctrine without asking you to read the Bible or a 6 volume set of systematic theology.
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is silent about an "ultimate cause" of the universe
[/ QUOTE ]
Some is, some isn't.
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't preach nihilism or any other ethical theory.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it preaches chance it does.
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. And I know no atheist or evolutionist (many of whom are christians) who preach nihilism.
Why do you keep setting up this obvious straw man?
[/ QUOTE ]
What many evolutionists say, usually without thinking about the consequences, is nihilistic. Also, most if not all nihilists preach evolution.
David Sklansky
10-03-2005, 02:42 PM
"How do evolutionists get around the meaninglessness of the universe and the non-existence of morality if chance IS ultimate?"
Many don't. So what?
NotReady
10-03-2005, 02:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Many don't. So what?
[/ QUOTE ]
So why do you care what's taught in the public schools?
David Sklansky
10-03-2005, 02:48 PM
I don't care. Sexdrugsmoney understands.
NotReady
10-03-2005, 02:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nuff said I guess.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many don't. So what?
[/ QUOTE ]
So why do you care what's taught in the public schools?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do YOU care? More people ignorant of your Lord and savior just means better seats in the big eternal show for you, and you can feel even more special than you already do.
hurlyburly
10-03-2005, 03:00 PM
His job is to "go forth and prosper". His beliefs demand of him to convert others to his faith. Which he's doing a bang up job of...
Peter666
10-03-2005, 04:11 PM
Thanks for the articles. I see no problems with macro evolution amongst lower species at the early stages of earth's creation as that articles contend. My main disagreement is with those who insist that life can spontaneously emerge from inanimate matter or that rationality can be acquired by non-rational creatures. If what the articles say is true, there will be no hope for evolutionary processess in the future compared to the beginning of earth's natural history.
Another interesting read is about Piltdown Man, and the unscrupulous ways "scientists" will go to prove their idea's "correct" for the sake of vain glory.
[ QUOTE ]
I see no problems with macro evolution amongst lower species at the early stages of earth's creation as that articles contend. My main disagreement is with those who insist that life can spontaneously emerge from inanimate matter or that rationality can be acquired by non-rational creatures.
[/ QUOTE ]
Earlier this thread: "Macro evolution, which is changes from one species to another... has no proof."
And the target keeps moving.
Peter666
10-03-2005, 04:18 PM
Not at all. I am just trying to provoke athiests into explaining their reasoning behind atheistic evolution. There is always the possibility or probability of theistic evolution, but not in the linear form so many people think of as evolution eg: amoeba > kidluckee > reptile > monkey > man.
Aytumious
10-03-2005, 04:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Not at all. I am just trying to provoke athiests into explaining their reasoning behind atheistic evolution. There is always the possibility or probability of theistic evolution, but not in the linear form so many people think of as evolution eg: amoeba > kidluckee > reptile > monkey > man.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kidluckee, I think all the ad hominem attacks against you by the theists on this board shows you are indeed making very good posts.
Peter666
10-03-2005, 04:23 PM
So this means you do not know the difference between evidence and proof as explained by bluebassman.
A remedial reading course will do you good.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not at all. I am just trying to provoke athiests into explaining their reasoning behind atheistic evolution. There is always the possibility or probability of theistic evolution, but not in the linear form so many people think of as evolution eg: amoeba > kidluckee > reptile > monkey > man.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kidluckee, I think all the ad hominem attacks against you by the theists on this board shows you are indeed making very good posts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you. I feel a sense of accomplishment everytime a theist compares me to an amoeba ... especially when the theist in question just used Aristotle's logical evidence as proof of a First Cause = God, when in the same passage Aristotle talked about the divinity of planetary matter and the heavens revolving around the earth.
hurlyburly
10-03-2005, 05:46 PM
"trying to provoke athiests into explaining their reasoning behind atheistic evolution"
Because we're here.
"the linear form so many people think of as evolution eg: amoeba > kidluckee > reptile > monkey > man"
You're problem is that you reason that man is the "goal" of evolution and work backwards from that. That's not the case.
Peter666
10-04-2005, 11:09 AM
Ad hominem attacks take place within context of the argument. This was not an ad hominem attack, merely an insult.
Peter666
10-04-2005, 11:10 AM
Then the question is, what are we evolving towards? Of course, whatever it is, is pure speculation and there is no evidence for it.
[ QUOTE ]
Then the question is, what are we evolving towards? Of course, whatever it is, is pure speculation and there is no evidence for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
When did pure speculation without evidence stop you before?
Peter666
10-04-2005, 11:14 AM
You still haven't answered my other challenges my little byotch.
[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't answered my other challenges my little byotch.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which are?
(Is "byotch" an Old Testament term?)
Peter666
10-04-2005, 11:45 AM
Go back to the One God thread. And for your second question, read the Old Testament and you tell me.
Sponger15SB
10-04-2005, 11:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well I was raised christian but this forum is making me question my religion
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that is going to make all your religion classes at USD all the more fun!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.