Why Christians/Conservatives Should Accept Evolution

[MikeTheBear]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Evolution - theory (ok honestly, theories - there are what , several hundred variations by now?) is not fact. It is merely multiple versions of a particular line of theory that seeks to unite the observable data we find on the planet in a plausible explanation. It always has been and always will be a work in progress and will undoutedly change many many more times in the future.[/quote]

Calling something “just a theory” ignores the scientific definition of theory. It’s like saying the theory of gravity is “just a theory.” Do you not believe in gravity? And yes, science changes based on new information. This is not a weakness but a good thing.

At the end of the day, evolution still cannot explain where everything came from and at that point - the origin of it all, it fails. It cannot give origin, it will only ever be able to offer a theory of process. In that sense it leaves a huge whole in the metaphysical understanding of our existence. So, no . . . thanks, but I’ll stick with my creation/God-centered understanding of the universe.

This is a god of the gaps argument - “I can’t explain it, therefore, it must be created by a god.”

[quote]To tick off the points:

1. An evolutionary theory that accepts intelligent design as its origin? well of course that fits with good theology, because it includes the creator - now how many evolutionists acknowledge the existence of the intelligent designer? quid pro quo, my friends . . .lol[/quote]

Quite a few, actually. Kenneth Miller is one. The Catholic Church has stated that evolution is perfectly fine with Church doctrine.

2. Straw man argument - “calling God a garage-tinkerer” - more like the Guy who created the most awesomest, accurate, feature filled, never needs winding, most perfect watch ever - doesn;t sould like a garage tinkerer to me - fallacious argument.

It’s actually a very good argument. Think about it. In the creation model, each creature was made from scratch. To create a new creature, the Creator/Designer had to go back to the workshop and start over and build a new creature from scratch. So the creationist view does create a watch that not only needs constant winding but constant repair. Evolution posits a self-contained system where simple creatures form into more complex ones based, in part, on changes in their environment and in response to the demands of survival. Evolution creates a system where you start it up once and it runs on its own.

3. Evolution explains Christian doctrine? this whole paragraph is unconnected and doesn’t even offer a rational explanation of the concept of Original Sin

From the article:

“As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil. Moral codes and a society based on the rule of law are necessary to accentuate the positive and attenuate the negative sides of our evolved nature.”

This makes more sense to me than the idea that because one guy ate some fruit he wasn’t supposed to eat we are all condemned to live in sin.

4. The Black Widow explains family values . . . . . nuf said

Wow, very ignorant. Humans evolved with the instinct to pair bond because human children require a longer time to grow to maturity. Humans are very complex creatures and require lots of nurturing and caring, and is best done with two parents. Black widows are not that intelligent and don’t need any nurturing. Most simple life forms lay eggs and abandon them. More complex creatures take some time to nurture their offspring, and complex creatures will actually form pair bonds for life. Evolution explains family values very well.

5. Moral Precepts? like Worship the One true God, Shall not murder, Shall not Covet . . . hmmm, seems to have forgotten what a moral precept actually is . . .

See the quote about humans being social. To live in a society that is well-ordered and cooperative requires moral values. So yes, the idea that you shouldn’t kill your neighbor is fundamental to a civilized society. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

[quote]6. Evolution explains capitalism . . . well maybe in natural trend towards choas - lol

[/quote]

Capitalism tends towards chaos? Although I may be “liberal” about issues such as the whole evolution debate, I am fiscally conservative and believe that capitalism is the one economic system that makes sense. But that’s for another topic.

[orion]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Fallen wrote:
You have to be:

1. High
2. Retarded
3. Retarded and High
4. Drunk
5. High, drunk, and retarded

To take what the bible says as the truth. I mean, how does church explain the preserved remains of human-like beings that date back thousands-millions of years? It can barely explain why priests have a fondness for little boys. There is a god but he’s either dead or playing an eternal game of bocce because he hasn’t cleaned out our tank and we are playing in our own shit now. Science…not a Christian god will give us hope (not science in the weird homosexual Tom Cruise way) for a better tomorrow.

Rushmo is actually the true messiah in disguise and his purpose is to finally face off against Obama in a celestial battle that will last 1000 years and require the lives of 9999 angels and demons. [/quote]

The problem with your argument is, what do you mean by “human-like”? How close or how far are these human-like beings to humans today? There is plenty of evidence to show that Neanderthals had much smaller brains than we do, limiting their capacity to problem solve and task manage compared with today’s human capacity. Research shows that modern humans probably began around 160k years ago, but how much different are modern humans to pre-modern humans?

How does someone judge this?

The Bible begins with the creation of Adam and Eve, not at a time where “human-like” creatures roamed the Earth.

Your priest analogy is worthless. Religion is flawed because men who practice it are flawed. Atheists are also capable of committing sins and breaking laws, because again they are human too. Did you have a point with this?[/quote]

Some Neandertals had a higher brain volume than we do.

They might have been smarter than us.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Calling something “just a theory” ignores the scientific definition of theory. It’s like saying the theory of gravity is “just a theory.” Do you not believe in gravity? And yes, science changes based on new information. This is not a weakness but a good thing.[/quote]

Are you aware that the theory of gravity has been completely disproven and reconstructed several times? Are you aware that according to recent measurements, the current theory still isn’t quite right? Do you incorrectly consider gravity a force? Are you aware that the “laws” of gravity don’t apply to all things or in all situations?

So yes, gravitation is still very much a theory, not a fact. I’m willing to bet it will be proven wrong and replaced at some point.

[Sloth]

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I realize that this will probably not change anyone’s mind, but it’s something to ponder and discuss. Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible.

Darwin on the Right
Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Darwin on the Right

[/quote]

Yes, I believe in both. No I won’t elaborate as I just went through this on a very recent thread. As for schooling, let local communities decide. It’s their schools, not ours. If one side loses the debate, and can’t tolerate the curriculum, let them homeschool. Would probably be better for the kid anyways. Sorry, but I don’t think teaching either one is what’s killing the competitiveness of this nation’s children when compared others. What was believed/taught 40-60 years ago? How did kids do in their coursework then? How did they compare to the world?

[blacksheep]

Greetings,

Stated from the link provided in the O.P.

"…The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now, or else, as the Book of Proverbs (11:29) warned: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.”

I understand the author’s reason for using the above Scripture, to put emphasis on his thoughts with the Christian’s Bible. But he is using it out of context. The Scripture deals with the sin of using ill gained wealth (cf. Pro. 15:27) and it’s effect, which will ultimately destroy the wicked and those around them. I in turn, could , as the author of the aforesaid article, use the rest of the Scripture he used to prove my point to those that do not believe in God. The Bible says that “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (Psalms 14:1) and the rest of the Scripture of the article’s author states, “…and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart” (those that do belive in God as the creator of all things). May I reply to the O.P. as to “Why Christians/Conservatives Should” Not “Accept Evolution.”

Evolution is the predominant view regarding the origin of life and the universe proposed in the scientific and educational community of the contemporary world. Bible-believing Christians should consider these four observations about evolution:

1. Evolution is a naturalistic effort to account for the origin and development of the universe. This view begins with the assumption that there is no personal, divine Creator who made and fashioned the world; rather, everything came into existence by a series of chance happenings that occured over billions of years. Proponents of evolution claim to have scientific data that support their hypothesis.

2. The teaching of evolution is not truly scientific. According to the scientific method, all conclusions must be based on indisputable evidence gathered from experiments that can be duplicated in any laboratory. However, no experiments have been or can be devised to test and substantiate theories about the origin of matter from some supposed “big bang” beginning or about the gradual development of living beings from their simplest to their most complex form. Consequently, evolution is a hypothesis without scientific “evidence”; therefore, to accept it one must have faith in a human theory. The faith of God’s people, in contrast, is in the Lord and in His inspired revelation, which states that He is the one who made all things out of nothing (Heb. 11:3).

3. It is undeniable that change and development within various species of living things occur. For example, some varieties of species are becoming extinct; on the other hand, we occasionally see new strains forming within species. But there is no evidence, not even in the geologic record, which supports the theory that one “kind” of living thing ever evolved from another “kind.” Rather, existing evidence supports the Bible’s declaration that God created each living creature “after his kind” (Gen. 1:21,24-25).

4. Bible-believing Christians must also reject the theory called theistic evolution. This theory adopts most of the conclusions of naturalistic evolution, adding only that God started the evolutionary process. Such a theory denies the Biblical revelation that ascribes to God an active role in all aspects of creation. For example, every main verb in Genesis 1 has God as its subject, except for Genesis 1:12 (which fulfills the command of God in Genesis 1:11) and the recurring phrase “there was evening and there was morning.” God is not a passive supervisor of an evolution process; rather, He is the active creator of all things (cf. Col. 1:16).

[GCF]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Second point, use the little box on the upper left of the screen and use the fucking search function. You believe yourself to be the originator of this subject? My God, grow the fuck up![/quote]

Who died and ordained you lord of what can and can’t be posted here? There are millions of threads in PWI all covering about 3 subjects. This is just as valid. Should be interesting.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Greetings,

Stated from the link provided in the O.P.

"…The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now, or else, as the Book of Proverbs (11:29) warned: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.”

I understand the author’s reason for using the above Scripture, to put emphasis on his thoughts with the Christian’s Bible. But he is using it out of context. The Scripture deals with the sin of using ill gained wealth (cf. Pro. 15:27) and it’s effect, which will ultimately destroy the wicked and those around them. I in turn, could , as the author of the aforesaid article, use the rest of the Scripture he used to prove my point to those that do not believe in God. The Bible says that “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (Psalms 14:1) and the rest of the Scripture of the article’s author states, “…and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart” (those that do belive in God as the creator of all things). May I reply to the O.P. as to “Why Christians/Conservatives Should” Not “Accept Evolution.”

Evolution is the predominant view regarding the origin of life and the universe proposed in the scientific and educational community of the contemporary world. Bible-believing Christians should consider these four observations about evolution:

1. Evolution is a naturalistic effort to account for the origin and development of the universe. THIS VIEW BEGINS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS NO PERSONAL, DIVINE CREATOR WHO MADE AND FASHIONED THE WORLD; rather, everything came into existence by a series of chance happenings that occured over billions of years. Proponents of evolution claim to have scientific data that support their hypothesis.

2. The teaching of evolution is not truly scientific. According to the scientific method, all conclusions must be based on indisputable evidence gathered from experiments that can be duplicated in any laboratory. However, no experiments have been or can be devised to test and substantiate theories about the origin of matter from some supposed “big bang” beginning or about the gradual development of living beings from their simplest to their most complex form. Consequently, evolution is a hypothesis without scientific “evidence”; therefore, to accept it one must have faith in a human theory. The faith of God’s people, in contrast, is in the Lord and in His inspired revelation, which states that He is the one who made all things out of nothing (Heb. 11:3).

3. It is undeniable that change and development within various species of living things occur. For example, some varieties of species are becoming extinct; on the other hand, we occasionally see new strains forming within species. But there is no evidence, not even in the geologic record, which supports the theory that one “kind” of living thing ever evolved from another “kind.” Rather, existing evidence supports the Bible’s declaration that God created each living creature “after his kind” (Gen. 1:21,24-25).

4. Bible-believing Christians must also reject the theory called theistic evolution. This theory adopts most of the conclusions of naturalistic evolution, adding only that God started the evolutionary process. Such a theory denies the Biblical revelation that ascribes to God an active role in all aspects of creation. For example, every main verb in Genesis 1 has God as its subject, except for Genesis 1:12 (which fulfills the command of God in Genesis 1:11) and the recurring phrase “there was evening and there was morning.” God is not a passive supervisor of an evolution process; rather, He is the active creator of all things (cf. Col. 1:16).[/quote]
   Emphasis mine.
   You will likely be pummeled for this post, but it is excellent, including the last point about “theistic evolution”. As for the part I highlighted? Any assertion like “we don’t assume anything, we just objectively examine the evidence” is itself an a priori assumption of the non existence of the God of the Bible. Even so much as entertaining the possibility of ultimately accurate knowledge apart from the God who is the beginning of all knowledge is itself a rejection of him and is everywhere addressed as such from Genesis to Revelation. It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with death and sin.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Greetings,

Stated from the link provided in the O.P.

"…The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now, or else, as the Book of Proverbs (11:29) warned: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.”

I understand the author’s reason for using the above Scripture, to put emphasis on his thoughts with the Christian’s Bible. But he is using it out of context. The Scripture deals with the sin of using ill gained wealth (cf. Pro. 15:27) and it’s effect, which will ultimately destroy the wicked and those around them. I in turn, could , as the author of the aforesaid article, use the rest of the Scripture he used to prove my point to those that do not believe in God. The Bible says that “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (Psalms 14:1) and the rest of the Scripture of the article’s author states, “…and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart” (those that do belive in God as the creator of all things). May I reply to the O.P. as to “Why Christians/Conservatives Should” Not “Accept Evolution.”

Evolution is the predominant view regarding the origin of life and the universe proposed in the scientific and educational community of the contemporary world. Bible-believing Christians should consider these four observations about evolution:

1. Evolution is a naturalistic effort to account for the origin and development of the universe. This view begins with the assumption that there is no personal, divine Creator who made and fashioned the world; rather, everything came into existence by a series of chance happenings that occured over billions of years. Proponents of evolution claim to have scientific data that support their hypothesis.

[/quote]
No, it does not even attempt to account for origin. It also does not and cannot assume there is no creator. It does not claim to know anything about how anything came into existence. This paragraph is beyond dumb. You do not understand science in the least.

2. The teaching of evolution is not truly scientific. According to the scientific method, all conclusions must be based on indisputable evidence gathered from experiments that can be duplicated in any laboratory. However, no experiments have been or can be devised to test and substantiate theories about the origin of matter from some supposed “big bang” beginning or about the gradual development of living beings from their simplest to their most complex form. Consequently, evolution is a hypothesis without scientific “evidence”; therefore, to accept it one must have faith in a human theory. The faith of God’s people, in contrast, is in the Lord and in His inspired revelation, which states that He is the one who made all things out of nothing (Heb. 11:3).

The theory of the big bang says nothing about the origin of matter.

3. It is undeniable that change and development within various species of living things occur. For example, some varieties of species are becoming extinct; on the other hand, we occasionally see new strains forming within species. But there is no evidence, not even in the geologic record, which supports the theory that one “kind” of living thing ever evolved from another “kind.” Rather, existing evidence supports the Bible’s declaration that God created each living creature “after his kind” (Gen. 1:21,24-25).

4. Bible-believing Christians must also reject the theory called theistic evolution. This theory adopts most of the conclusions of naturalistic evolution, adding only that God started the evolutionary process. Such a theory denies the Biblical revelation that ascribes to God an active role in all aspects of creation. For example, every main verb in Genesis 1 has God as its subject, except for Genesis 1:12 (which fulfills the command of God in Genesis 1:11) and the recurring phrase “there was evening and there was morning.” God is not a passive supervisor of an evolution process; rather, He is the active creator of all things (cf. Col. 1:16).

Is there a theistic difference between God doing something and god creating the laws and matter of the universe while being omnipotent and outside of time?

Is a machinist who makes the statement “I milled the part this morning” a liar because he didn’t use his hand?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Petermus wrote:
I know the way we think of evolution and the time-line of evolution as it is now can never be reconcilable with the bible as we understand it. Does it mean evolution itself is wrong…no but it does mean we can not be related to apes or any animal lived before humans.

There are a millions different theories some that are reasonable…others moronic that explain different problems with the bible and evolution. I do not just accept ignorance but believe God reveals more in time. People think of the bible as stagnant and inferior to science but we haven’t come close to understanding the bible as a whole or understanding our own existence and our world.[/quote]

If you take the Bible for what it is, then Evolution and the Bible can work together. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Fallen wrote:
I simply hate the Christian faith[/quote]

Well, isn’t that nice. At least those who debate with you know your origin. You are looking for truth, you simply hate something. That makes for irrational arguments. God speed.

[Sloth]

Not going to get into it. But, since I got called out by name I’ll just say that my responses are in one of the other religious threads. It’s true, we’re not a “bible church,” sola scriptura, or whatnot. We’re apostolic and thus have a different understanding of the bible than the evangelical. I will say this much, again. I don’t understand the fixation on evolution. Creation account literalism is far more problematic for the evangelical. The world portrayed in the account is obviously not correct. Read my responses in that thread, or focus on the ‘firmament’ in the account as one considers the shape/contents of the world-universe described. These are observations that can be tested today. Shuttles aren’t crashing into the firmament (with the celestials lights fixed in it). Over and out.

[IrishSteel]

MiketheBear . . .

I do believe I explained that it was a theory in progess - no foul intended - just stating facts here.

No, not gaps argument - simply stating my personal belief that the origin of all things was the revealed creator of the Bible. My point was that evolution has no explanation for origin - kudos on missing the forest for the tree . . .

1. tongue-in-cheek, my friend - the sarcasm was heavy in that one . . .

2. If you are going to accept the Christian perspective you have to take the whole thing - the reason that creation is corrupted is because of the action of man - in the perfect creation there was no need for “upkeep” and even corrupted, it stills abides by the laws of nature he establlished - seems to work pretty well overall . . . unless you’d rather breathe the atmosphere on Jupiter . . .

3. Original Sin - one doctrine - details of which are not agreed on by all and a poor proof that all doctrines of scripture can be explained by evolution - how about the atonement for sins by the Sacrifice of the sinless son of God - hmmmm?

4. For every example you can find of good family values in nature - I can find the opposite . . . similarity is not proof of causality . . .

5. All depends on your definition of morality . . . society is not moral by Christian standards, so the morals of Christianity must not be related to societal norms expressed via evolutionary process . . . and crash the house of cards falls down - you can prove anything if you manipulate the definitions . . .

6. LOL - again - sarcasm here - look at our economic condition (and trust me, I’ll be the first to agree that capitalism is not at fault) - and tell me we are racing towards economic choas

Anyway - article was a fluff piece of philosophical mumbo-jumbo mish-mashed into a paragraph structure and bound together with metaphysical equivalent of snot . . . seriously . . . there are better arguments on this site from Lifti and thats saying something just yanking your chain Lifti!

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If you take the Bible for what it is, then Evolution and the Bible can work together. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.[/quote]

And in doing so the Catholic Church takes a great big huge dump on Scripture.

True Christianity - which states death came into this world through the sin of man - cannot be reconciled with evolution because evolution calls for millions of years of death up to and including the evolution of man.

Theistic evolutionists like Pat and Sloth CANNOT make this dichotomy come together with any remote sense of logic and theological merit. When they try to do so they fall flat on their faces. I’ve been through this on other threads.

[center]You can’t have evolution without death.

You can’t have Christianity without man’s sin causing death.[/center]

Catholics and other theistic evolutionists have to put the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible for that matter through a burger grinder in order to concoct a theology that makes their “compromise” work. It’s that simple.[/quote]

Well, I do not see the dump on the scriptures, however I should reconcile my statement above. The Catholic Church assumes reason and faith cannot go against each other. So, even though they have not claimed that evolution is truth they are accepting of it because of various reasons.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not going to get into it. But, since I got called out by name I’ll just say that my responses are in one of the other religious threads. It’s true, we’re not a “bible church,” sola scriptura, or whatnot. We’re apostolic and thus have a different understanding of the bible than the evangelical. I will say this much, again. I don’t understand the fixation on evolution. Creation account literalism is far more problematic for the evangelical. The world portrayed in the account is obviously not correct. Read my responses in that thread, or focus on the ‘firmament’ in the account as one considers the shape/contents of the world-universe described. These are observations that can be tested today. Shuttles aren’t crashing into the firmament (with the celestials lights fixed in it). Over and out.[/quote]

Word. Which thread is it?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If you take the Bible for what it is, then Evolution and the Bible can work together. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.[/quote]

And in doing so the Catholic Church takes a great big huge dump on Scripture.

True Christianity - which states death came into this world through the sin of man - cannot be reconciled with evolution because evolution calls for millions of years of death up to and including the evolution of man.

Theistic evolutionists like Pat and Sloth CANNOT make this dichotomy come together with any remote sense of logic and theological merit. When they try to do so they fall flat on their faces. I’ve been through this on other threads.

[center]You can’t have evolution without death.

You can’t have Christianity without man’s sin causing death.[/center]

Catholics and other theistic evolutionists have to put the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible for that matter through a burger grinder in order to concoct a theology that makes their “compromise” work. It’s that simple.[/quote]

For shits and giggles, you care if I take a crack at it?

Christians believe they are sinless in Christ. It should hold then that believers are immortal. The fact that we all die, should by your theory disprove the whole thing. Isn’t the gift of god, through Christ, supposed to be eternal life? How can this possibly be?

Oh, wait, there might be another way. I think you are confusing a few things. Christians today are supposed to still be saved from death. They aren’t idiots because they are talking about an ultimate spiritual death (hell).

Evolutionary physical death can take place without violating the immortality of the soul. Maybe Adam and Eve were the first creatures to be given souls, this would also make them the first human beings in the philosophic sense, and allow for the physical deaths of evolutionary theory.

[Schlenkatank]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Evolution - theory (ok honestly, theories - there are what , several hundred variations by now?) is not fact. It is merely multiple versions of a particular line of theory that seeks to unite the observable data we find on the planet in a plausible explanation. It always has been and always will be a work in progress and will undoutedly change many many more times in the future.

At the end of the day, evolution still cannot explain where everything came from and at that point - the origin of it all, it fails. It cannot give origin, it will only ever be able to offer a theory of process. In that sense it leaves a huge whole in the metaphysical understanding of our existence.

So, no . . . thanks, but I’ll stick with my creation/God-centered understanding of the universe.

[/quote]

Couple of quick things.

Many concepts of evolution are provable facts. Microevolution is a well documented occurrence, as is genetic drift, as is allopatric speciation, etc. Therefore it’s not just a theory, it is very real.

Evolution can and does offer scientific explanations for creation. Google the term protobiont and you will find that this is what scientists believe to be the precursor to the first cell. It is essentially a phospholipid bilayer with simple RNA that has been proven to literally self aggregate in certain conditions! In other words, it is very close to life from lifelessness.

The theory of evolution is also very rock solid, what is changing right now is the understanding of evolutionary relationships. Mutations are the ultimate source of new alleles, and natural selection is the force that shapes genetic frequency.

[IrishSteel]

Push! Sloth! - you’re not supposed to leave a friend alone on the battlefield!! - lol j/k, you guys take a much deserved rest. You have indeed slashed with mighty swords and the ruin and devastation is vast and terrible!

ok Schlenkatank - I was speaking of the grand overarching “theory of evolution” - while individual components may or may not be scietific fact is a discussion for an evolution thread (i do believe there have been a few here and we definitely do not need to refight that ground) - the unifying theory is very much just a theory.

You missed my point - you are speaking of the origin of life (a troublesome point for evolution to be sure) - I was speaking of the origin of everything. Evolution does not have an explanation of the origin of matter/energy of the physical universe other than to say that it exists . . . thus evolution does not give origin, only process and furthermore it can never explain origin - evolution is continually predicated on the existence of something, but it can never answer where that something comes from . . . remember this mantra:

evolution is merely process. . . . evolution is merely process. . . . evolution is merely process. . . .