How to deal with evolution?

[arunma]

Regarding my mathematical biology class, I seem to have found myself in a possible dilemma. As a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrent words of God, I obviously do not believe in evolution. Unfortunately, I may have to write a final paper on a topic regarding evolution. Now, I'm not one to preach creationism, since such discussions often cause the Gospel to take a back seat. But by no means does this mean that I actually believe in any form of evolution. Since Jesus must be the Lord of our lives in all areas, I obviously cannot compartmentalize religion and science, and ignore the words of God while in the classroom.

Fortunately, it happens to be the case that I could easily choose a topic which doesn't involve evolution, so this dilemma isn't too significant of an issue. But it has raised the question in my mind: how is a Christian to deal with this?

[Phileoeklogos]

Hello Arunma, glad to get a chance to finally interact with you, I've lurked here a good while and read many of your posts, just call me Phil, glad to make your acquaintance.

To answer your question, I am not a scientist or in the company of scientists often, so any conversations I have in this area are normally with average joes like myself, so my answer to them is " I'm a Christian, I don't believe in evolution, and beyond any other reason I could give, I don't believe in evolution because I don't have any Biblical support for it".

Which normally leads to having to answer the follow up objections to the first answer with the following statement, " Explain to me how inanimate matter becomes living matter, and then we have grounds for evolution to be a possibilty, until then, evolution has no place to start ".

I don't think even the scientist has a real arguement for that, some may say that evolutionists don't concern themselves with origin, I'd have to reply " I understand why ", but if they want to argue for the inanimate becoming animate, I'd have to find out why they would object to the Resurrection of Jesus, it seems to me that if there is a mathematical possibility of the inanimate becoming animate, then the possibilty of reanimation should be greater.

[BigNorsk]

I really don't understand why you have a problem writing something on the theory of evolution.

Let's look at something a little closer to physics for a minute. As you know, no one has been able to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to do so but he wasn't able to.

So lets say as a physicist you decide that you believe that quantum mechanics is correct, it is the truth.

Are you therefore unable to write a paper on the theory of relativity?

I wouldn't think so.

So we are back to the question, why would you be unable to write a paper on the theory of evolution? There is no good reason for that.
Let's use another example. Let's say you take a class on religions of the world. You are assigned to write a paper on Hinduism. Are you unable to do so because you don't believe Hinduism is correct?

You are creating a problem in your mind that doesn't exist. There are a lot of teachers who teach the theory of evolution more as though it was the law of evolution but that is to their discredit. I would think you as a physicist, who would study both theories and laws, would recognize the difference. Often biologists don't.

Marv

[Joykins]

It's always quite mind-bending to write a paper or speech one doesn't quite agree with.

I took a speech course where we had to do a persuasive speech on one side or another on a topic. I picked a side that I really didn't totally agree with (animal experimentation, pro), but I managed to be quite persuasive, and had research to back me up.

I think it's more of a lawyerly skill than a scientific one. The key is being really, really dispassionate. Lots of passive voice. There is no YOU there.

[tamtam92]

I had to study evolution for the baccalaureate (high school french degree). So at the exam, i explained everything as i had learned, with conditional tenses, and beginning with "according to evolution theory, it would...", etc. Being able to explain evolution doesn't mean you believe it, just as Marv pointed out.

And yet i fully understand your reluctance. I face about the same problem... and i'm studying computer engineering! There are some links with biology and psychology, and as the french scientists are always attached to evolution, they're inspired by it too. I find it disturbing too, but i just have to do with it. And eventually i'm getting more towards mathematics... lol. I wish i could find a theory inspired by creation... but in fact everything an engineer does is sort of creation, isn't it?

[JPPT1974]

There are things that don't exist
But only the Lord has created everything
As well as everybody in the world
Because we are His
All His!!

[constance]

Have you read "Inherit the Wind"? It was a play, it might be a movie too.

My sister is a Fundamentalist, and a Biology teacher. She understands that evolution theory fits within God's design.

Constance

[DawnTillery]

Same but not the same.. I am writing a paper about cotton and i look stuff up and it talks about the first findings etc etc.. and it doesnt line up.. But i have to write it.. Think about it as writing a fiction paper for a class for a grade. Do you get a paragraph for your opinion, put it in there.
with my degree I have to take a lot of science classes and usually find my professors as nonbelievers, doesn't change my opinion, stand firm in the words of God, and sometimes I just wonder at the amazement of Gods work as we study the earth, etc etc... Science proves nothing right, if they cant find a reason why its false (and believe me they arent looking very hard) then it "MUST" be true..

I did take a bio test on evolution and it was the worse grade i got in the class, because I just couldnt study for it, but I have to keep going to get the degree, just remember once you get your degree as I will, let us give something back to the world (God's word shown in our lives) God Bless and you're not alone
READ BELOW

This is a true story of something that happened just a few years ago at USC.
There was a professor of philosophy there who was a deeply committed atheist.
His primary goal for one required class was to spend the entire semester to
prove that God couldn't exist.

His students were always afraid to argue with him because of his impeccable
logic. Sure, some had argued in class at times, but no one had ever really gone
against him because of his reputation.

At the end of every semester on the last day, he would say to his class of 300
students, "If there is anyone here who still believes in Jesus, stand up!"

In twenty years, no one had ever stood up. They knew what he was going to do
next. He would say, "Because anyone who believes in God is a fool. If God
existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and
breaking. Such a simple task to prove that He is God, and yet He can't do it."

And every year, he would drop the chalk onto the tile floor of the classroom and
it would shatter into a hundred pieces.

All of the students would do nothing but stop and stare.

Most of the students thought that God couldn't exist. Certainly, a number of
Christians had slipped through, but for 20 years, they had been too afraid to
stand up.

Well, a few years ago there was a freshman who happened to enroll.
He was a Christian, and had heard the stories about his professor.
He was required to take the class for his major, and he was afraid. But for
three months that semester, he prayed every morning that he would have the
courage to stand up no matter what the professor said, or what the class
thought.

Nothing they said could ever shatter his faith...he hoped.

Finally, the day came! The professor said, "If there is anyone here who still
believes in God, stand up!" The professor and the class of 300 people looked at
him, shocked, as he stood up at the back of the classroom.

The professor shouted, "You FOOL!!! If God existed, he would keep this piece of
chalk from breaking when it hit the ground!"

He proceeded to drop the chalk, but as he did, it slipped out of his fingers,
off his shirt cuff, onto the pleat of his pants, down his leg, and off his
shoe. As it hit the ground, it simply rolled away unbroken. The professor's
jaw dropped as he stared at the chalk. He looked up at the young man, and then
ran out of the lecture hall.

The young man who had stood, proceeded to walk to the front of the room and
shared his faith in Jesus for the next half hour. 300 students stayed and
listened as he told of God's love for them and of His power through Jesus.
God Bless You

[catch21wide]

I had sort of the same problem in High School. The teacher wanted us to write a paper on evolution and its effects on science. After class, I went to her and said that I don't believe in evolution and when it is taught that the information goes in one ear and out the other regardless of what the State says(State law requires that evolution be taught:( ). I said that if I had to write a paper on evolution, I would rebuke everything evolution had to say with Biblical teachings. I could tell she was agitated, but she also saw that I was serious. I wasn't the only one that felt that way. She allowed it and she was impressed with my paper. My stand on this issue is that if you don't believe in evolution, talk to the professor about it, even if he or she is an evolutionist. Pray and ask God for guidance on this issue and I'm positive He will lead you to the Right decision.

[handmaiden97]

I think you have a wonderful oppertunity to write a paper on creation and the scientifice evidence that back it up...you can write a paper on the evolutionist theories that have been disproven...There are many great websites you can use....pm me if you need any.

if your paper is well written and throughly reserched, if it is scientifice in its content and not just writtien "I believe cause the Bible says"....but say I believe the Bible is true when it says, and here is the scientific evidences to support that belief. If it is written acoridnign the the classes specifications then it has too be graded on those same specification and you cant get a bad greade just because your teacher does not agree. I think it is a great opertunity to speak up for truth!!!

[arunma]

Thanks everyone for the responses.

I think you have a wonderful oppertunity to write a paper on creation and the scientifice evidence that back it up...you can write a paper on the evolutionist theories that have been disproven...There are many great websites you can use....pm me if you need any.

if your paper is well written and throughly reserched, if it is scientifice in its content and not just writtien "I believe cause the Bible says"....but say I believe the Bible is true when it says, and here is the scientific evidences to support that belief. If it is written acoridnign the the classes specifications then it has too be graded on those same specification and you cant get a bad greade just because your teacher does not agree. I think it is a great opertunity to speak up for truth!!!

You know, you've given me an interesting idea. Unfortunately, this paper is worth the majority of my grade for the class. But as I said earlier, it wasn't that big of an issue, since in this case, I could simply choose a topic that has nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps I could write two papers, one for a grade (having nothing to do with evolution, of course), and one for an explanation of why I do not believe in evolution. Do you think this would be a good way to witness to Christ? Or would it simply be seen as foolishness?

[catch21wide]

I think it would be a wonderful way to witness the name of Jesus Christ. By writing the paper, you may be able to get the professor to learn more about Jesus and the Bible at the same time. If you decide this front, I as a fellow believer in Christ support you and I will pray for you and I will pray that through your hand, another life will be saved by the grace of God.

[United]

Regarding my mathematical biology class, I seem to have found myself in a possible dilemma. As a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrent words of God, I obviously do not believe in evolution. Unfortunately, I may have to write a final paper on a topic regarding evolution. Now, I'm not one to preach creationism, since such discussions often cause the Gospel to take a back seat. But by no means does this mean that I actually believe in any form of evolution. Since Jesus must be the Lord of our lives in all areas, I obviously cannot compartmentalize religion and science, and ignore the words of God while in the classroom.

Fortunately, it happens to be the case that I could easily choose a topic which doesn't involve evolution, so this dilemma isn't too significant of an issue. But it has raised the question in my mind: how is a Christian to deal with this?Hi there arunma,

There are some christians who believe that the Bible is the inerrent and literal word of God, while still believing in the theory of evolution. I would be reluctant to proclaim christianity by refuting evolution.

[JPPT1974]

Hi there arunma,

There are some christians who believe that the Bible is the inerrent and literal word of God, while still believing in the theory of evolution. I would be reluctant to proclaim christianity by refuting evolution.

Yeah you are right about that
The Bible is God's Word
Nothing can and will ever compromise that at all!

[PrincetonGuy]

As a biologist I believe in the theories of natural selection and evolution. As a Christian I believe that we have all sinned and have all come short of the glory of God, and that Jesus died in our place for our sins so that through faith in Him our sins are forgiven and we are empowered by God’s grace to live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Evolution belongs to the realm of the natural sciences; salvation belongs to the realm of the Christian faith. Those who suppose there to be a conflict between the two typically don’t know very much about either of them. Believing in both of them should be no more difficult than to park a Chevy and a Ford in the same garage.

[Soldat_fur_Christ]

As a biologist I believe in the theories of natural selection and evolution. As a Christian I believe that we have all sinned and have all come short of the glory of God, and that Jesus died in our place for our sins so that through faith in Him our sins are forgiven and we are empowered by God’s grace to live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Evolution belongs to the realm of the natural sciences; salvation belongs to the realm of the Christian faith. Those who suppose there to be a conflict between the two typically don’t know very much about either of them. Believing in both of them should be no more difficult than to park a Chevy and a Ford in the same garage.
Yea, but then you're kind of going against what Genesis states. Now I'm not against 'microevolution' or the adaptation, because we have all sorts of dogs, cats, etc. But the part about the amoebe's or whatever they were being the start of life, and everything evolving from there, just doesn't make sense. How can things have enough mutations to make us what we have now? Granted, like I mentioned, we have the variation among us, dogs, cats, etc... but a fish turning into a land walker, becoming something else... etc. It just can't work that way. Biology class is a joke whenever we have to read about it. Also, if evolution like that did happen, then death would have been in the world before sin... which is going against God's word. Remember in Genesis, nothing alive (animals) died before sin came in. Everything was supported by the plant life on earth. Humans, animals; Dinosaurs, aquatic life, etc... Also the Bible should be regarded as the innerant word of God. It was divinely inspired, he helped the people write it. So why would God lie? Wouldn't he have told us that we evolved? There's nowhere in the Bible that supports that.

[trinityisunity]

AMEN AMEN AMEN to what Soldut fur Christ said. I call it "EVILution" because it is satans way of totally destroying the truth of a God designed creation.I am passionate about this subject of creation versus EVILution and I totally believe that God created this universe and everything in it. I have attended some Creation Science seminars where the creation theory was presented beyond refute.I refuse to ever believe we came from pond slime or monkeys. We were created by a Loving, Caring God.

[arunma]

As a biologist I believe in the theories of natural selection and evolution. As a Christian I believe that we have all sinned and have all come short of the glory of God, and that Jesus died in our place for our sins so that through faith in Him our sins are forgiven and we are empowered by God’s grace to live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Evolution belongs to the realm of the natural sciences; salvation belongs to the realm of the Christian faith. Those who suppose there to be a conflict between the two typically don’t know very much about either of them. Believing in both of them should be no more difficult than to park a Chevy and a Ford in the same garage.

Well, I don't think that one is a "bad Christian" for believing in evolution. Nonetheless, I think an honest reading of the Scriptures would suggest special creation. As a fellow scientist, and more importantly, as a Christian, I do respect your opinion, even though I do not personally believei in evolution.

[Tappanga]

Hey arunma!

Dr David Reagan (non-denom pastor who focuses on end times) had a good program about it recently. You can search his site lamblion.com for evolution and find many useful Christian articles.

Also, recently a Christian friend at work and myself were talking about evolution (I was explaining how I didn't believe in it, and something I add with non-Christians in addition to God is that all science has to be PROVEN. We can't recreate evolution in a lab, now can we?) and she said her thirteen year old daughter said something about evolution that was wonderful. She said, "Mom, if some believe that we are evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

I'm not guiding you, but I think if it were me, I'd show the Christian views on evolution.

[AutumnAnne]

Focus on the family has some really good resources for this stuff. We bought two DVDs recently.. One was called Icons Of Evolution, and the other was Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I'm tempted to just get your address and send them to you!! They are both commentated by highly respected scientists- all offering newly discovered GAPING holes in Evolution. The dvds aren't platforms for Creation- several of the scientists aren't even Christians... just people who have found proof in some sort of intelligent design. If you are interested- I'll send them to you.

[arunma]

Focus on the family has some really good resources for this stuff. We bought two DVDs recently.. One was called Icons Of Evolution, and the other was Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I'm tempted to just get your address and send them to you!! They are both commentated by highly respected scientists- all offering newly discovered GAPING holes in Evolution. The dvds aren't platforms for Creation- several of the scientists aren't even Christians... just people who have found proof in some sort of intelligent design. If you are interested- I'll send them to you.

Actually, I've read a book called Icons of Evolution. My guess is that the DVD is based on it. It was very interesting, in that it attacked evolution from a purely secular point of view (I don't think the book mentions God even once). Thus, a non-Christian could at the very least not accuse the author of promoting a religious agenda.

He brings up a great point, that pictures and diagrams, such as taxonomoic trees, misdrawn pictures of human embryos (the misdrawing of which is acknowledged by all scientists), and other such things, have come to be mistaken for actual evidence in favor of evolution. If nothing else, it should give the evolutionist pause to at least consider our case.

But it's interesting stuff. Thanks for bringing it up.

[ZiSunka]

Regarding my mathematical biology class, I seem to have found myself in a possible dilemma. As a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrent words of God, I obviously do not believe in evolution. Unfortunately, I may have to write a final paper on a topic regarding evolution. Now, I'm not one to preach creationism, since such discussions often cause the Gospel to take a back seat. But by no means does this mean that I actually believe in any form of evolution. Since Jesus must be the Lord of our lives in all areas, I obviously cannot compartmentalize religion and science, and ignore the words of God while in the classroom.

Fortunately, it happens to be the case that I could easily choose a topic which doesn't involve evolution, so this dilemma isn't too significant of an issue. But it has raised the question in my mind: how is a Christian to deal with this?

I don't really understand why evolution has to be dealt with at all. Why is it such a significant issue? It isn't like anyone has ever been convinced to follow Christ because some Christian talked to them about evolution, or that the world in general is sitting around talking about it and we have to stop them. If you can write your paper about something else, just do that without agonizing about how to deal with it. It's a non-issue.

[JPPT1974]

I don't really understand why evolution has to be dealt with at all. Why is it such a significant issue? It isn't like anyone has ever been convinced to follow Christ because some Christian talked to them about evolution, or that the world in general is sitting around talking about it and we have to stop them. If you can write your paper about something else, just do that without agonizing about how to deal with it. It's a non-issue.

Evolution doesn't belong in the Christian religion
I don't understand it at all either
Wonder why they put it with Christianity.

[PrincetonGuy]

Yea, but then you're kind of going against what Genesis states. Now I'm not against 'microevolution' or the adaptation, because we have all sorts of dogs, cats, etc. But the part about the amoebe's or whatever they were being the start of life, and everything evolving from there, just doesn't make sense. How can things have enough mutations to make us what we have now? Granted, like I mentioned, we have the variation among us, dogs, cats, etc... but a fish turning into a land walker, becoming something else... etc. It just can't work that way. Biology class is a joke whenever we have to read about it.

The natural sciences do not involve themselves with either the supernatural or religion. The best, by far, explanation of the scientific data is that the more complex forms of life evolved over a VERY LONG TIME from less complex forms of life through the process of natural selection.

Also, if evolution like that did happen, then death would have been in the world before sin... which is going against God's word. Remember in Genesis, nothing alive (animals) died before sin came in. Everything was supported by the plant life on earth. Humans, animals; Dinosaurs, aquatic life, etc...

The first eleven chapters of Genesis belong to the genre of literature known today as epic literature. We know for certain that the flood depicted in Genesis is NOT an accurate account of an historic event. Therefore, there is no reason to interpret the rest of the first eleven chapters as an accurate account of historic events, and VERY FEW scholars of Genesis interpret them in that manner.

Also the Bible should be regarded as the innerant word of God. It was divinely inspired, he helped the people write it. So why would God lie? Wouldn't he have told us that we evolved? There's nowhere in the Bible that supports that.

The Bible makes no claim at all for inerrancy. And, of course, the earth is not flat with four corners covered by a dome containing the stars, the sun, several planets, and our moon; and the sun does not revolve around the earth. God did not bless us with only the Bible—He also blessed us with the Holy Spirit to help us to learn from the Bible in the light of the truth that He has chosen to make known to us through science.

[Project 86]

The first eleven chapters of Genesis belong to the genre of literature known today as epic literature. We know for certain that the flood depicted in Genesis is NOT an accurate account of an historic event. Therefore, there is no reason to interpret the rest of the first eleven chapters as an accurate account of historic events, and VERY FEW scholars of Genesis interpret them in that manner.



The Bible makes no claim at all for inerrancy. And, of course, the earth is not flat with four corners covered by a dome containing the stars, the sun, several planets, and our moon; and the sun does not revolve around the earth. God did not bless us with only the Bible—He also blessed us with the Holy Spirit to help us to learn from the Bible in the light of the truth that He has chosen to make known to us through science.

The flood, Noah, Adam, Eve and others are referred by Jesus and others in the N.T. as real people. If you are correct then Jesus and the others were wrong to treat not only the people in the first chapters of Genesis as real people but also the events.

Your statement about inerrancy is very telling. Many evolution believing Christians I run into also deny inerrancy. When the Bible loses its authority with a person then the person tends to buy into man made ideas more often which is all goo to man evolution is. Man to goo evolution isn't true and the evidence in the science world and also in the biblical world doesn't support it.

2 Peter 3:5-6 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[PrincetonGuy]

The flood, Noah, Adam, Eve and others are referred by Jesus and others in the N.T. as real people. If you are correct then Jesus and the others were wrong to treat not only the people in the first chapters of Genesis as real people but also the events.

Yes, Jesus did refer to the flood and to Noah,

Matt. 24:37. "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39. and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:26. "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27. they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

In both of these two gospels Jesus uses the story of Noah and the Ark as an illustration of what the days will be like immediately before His Second Coming. He was not teaching a class on world history—he was using a well known Bible story as an illustration for his teaching regarding His Second Coming. Jesus, being the Son of God, knew very well that penguins can’t fly and that kangaroos can’t swim so He knew very well that the story was not an accurate account of an historic event. He simply used it for illustrative purposes.

We find a similar use of this illustration in the writings of Peter,

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

In this passage Peter was not teaching a class on world history—he was teaching the salvific value of water baptism. I find it rather unfortunate that many Baptists get so caught up with Noah and the Ark in this passage that they completely miss what Peter was actually teaching about water baptism.

We find a similar situation in 1 Cor. 15:28-29,

28. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
29. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Paul knew that baptizing people as surrogates of those who had died not having heard and believed the gospel was accomplished nothing, yet he used this incorrect belief that was commonly believed in Corinth as an argument for the resurrection of the dead.

Your statement about inerrancy is very telling. Many evolution believing Christians I run into also deny inerrancy. When the Bible loses its authority with a person then the person tends to buy into man made ideas more often which is all goo to man evolution is. Man to goo evolution isn't true and the evidence in the science world and also in the biblical world doesn't support it.

The doctrine that the Bible is totally inerrant is a man-made doctrine that is NOT supported by what the Bible says about itself. Luke, for example, wrote that he relied upon his own research to write his gospel and the book of Acts. He makes no mention at all of divine intervention in what he wrote,

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

It is my personal conviction that Luke was anointed by the Holy Spirit as he wrote, but that is only my personal conviction. Luke’s gospel was almost for certain written after Paul wrote 2 Timothy, so 2 Tim. 3:16-17 can not be said to apply to it. And, of course, the language of 2 Tim. 3:16 is ambiguous in the Greek text and can also be translated,

Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Whether or not each of the four gospels were inspired by God is not taught anywhere in the Bible and any claim to any of them being inspired is speculation on the part of men. Personally, I believe that they were inspired, but I am certain that Jesus knew that penguins can’t fly and that kangaroos can’t swim and that He knew very well that the story of Noah’s Ark was not an accurate account of an historic event, but that he used the story for illustrative purposes just like He used parables for the purpose of illustration.

(All Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995, unless otherwise noted.)

[Project 86]

Whether or not each of the four gospels were inspired by God is not taught anywhere in the Bible and any claim to any of them being inspired is speculation on the part of men. Personally, I believe that they were inspired, but I am certain that Jesus knew that penguins can’t fly and that kangaroos can’t swim and that He knew very well that the story of Noah’s Ark was not an accurate account of an historic event, but that he used the story for illustrative purposes just like He used parables for the purpose of illustration.

The writings of the NT are several times called scripture. More then just writings they were the words of God written by man. As for kangaroos swimming there are answers out there. Your assuming some things using your evolution worldview mindset. Your assuming that the continents had already split. There are Ph. D. scientists in geology that would argue differently. Also you have to remember God brought the animals to Noah. He could have easily done this supertnaturally like he did many other things supernaturally through out history.

Here are some technical journals (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate.asp)by creation believing scientists who have different views on plate tectonics. It makes interesting for geeks such as myself. ;)

[98cwitr]

I was brought up to believe evolution all my life, and while I am beginning to refute it, I still cannot get over the fact that Chimps have 99% of the exact same DNA that we do. Maybe God just made them very similiar to us for a reason unknown to man. I can speculate all day long, I will never know while on this earth.

[catch21wide]

When it comes to the Bible, I have been taught to believe that it is the Word of God. Since it is the Word of God, I believe it to be inerrant. I don't believe in compromising the Bible. By believing in evolution, I would be compromising the Word of God and just don't do that. Humans, animals, plants, and the universe were created in His image. We don't have to know why chimps have almost the same genes as we do. God wanted them that way. When a scientist starts talking about how evolution is right, I just take Ph. D. and make it into an acronym= pompous human dummies. I don't say that to be mean, it's just what pops in my head at the time. The Bible was written by the supernatural inspiration of God. You can try and tell me it wasn't, but I will not go against the Word of God.If the Bible was not inspired by God, then why is it the only book in the world to have had 2,000 prophecies fulfilled. Until you answer that question with a good answer, don't try refuting how the Bible was written.

[SteelDisciple]

Regarding my mathematical biology class, I seem to have found myself in a possible dilemma. As a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrent words of God, I obviously do not believe in evolution. Unfortunately, I may have to write a final paper on a topic regarding evolution. Now, I'm not one to preach creationism, since such discussions often cause the Gospel to take a back seat. But by no means does this mean that I actually believe in any form of evolution. Since Jesus must be the Lord of our lives in all areas, I obviously cannot compartmentalize religion and science, and ignore the words of God while in the classroom.

Fortunately, it happens to be the case that I could easily choose a topic which doesn't involve evolution, so this dilemma isn't too significant of an issue. But it has raised the question in my mind: how is a Christian to deal with this?
The biggest mistake Christians mistake is thinking that Science is "bad". Fact is..Science is a tool like any other. It helps us to KNOW God more through his creations.
I do believe (as it is PROVEN) that our bodies do change to our enviroments. That's a fact. It's science. And it's how God made it to be. Science and God work hand in hand...science is merely the "HOW" to God's creations. :)

[PrincetonGuy]

The writings of the NT are several times called scripture. More then just writings they were the words of God written by man. As for kangaroos swimming there are answers out there. Your assuming some things using your evolution worldview mindset. Your assuming that the continents had already split. There are Ph. D. scientists in geology that would argue differently. Also you have to remember God brought the animals to Noah. He could have easily done this supertnaturally like he did many other things supernaturally through out history.

Here are some technical journals (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate.asp)by creation believing scientists who have different views on plate tectonics. It makes interesting for geeks such as myself. ;)

In my professional opinion, Answers in Genesis is a fraudulent, pseudo-Christian cult that has done immeasurable damage to both the Christian faith and the natural sciences by making Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons in the late stages of dementia and by making scientists appear to be high school dropouts. Their handling the Holy Scriptures demonstrates a most severe disrespect for them and the God who inspired them. Their handing of science belittles the life time of learning of hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world and exalts a pack of fools who have been so severely blinded by the devil himself that they cannot see the significance of the data staring them in the face. Their so-called scientific papers demonstrate a most pathetic ignorance of the natural sciences and should most definitely not be confused with the real thing.

I respect the right of everyone to believe what they choose to believe, but to willfully and deliberately distort the facts in order to defend one’s personal and grossly ignorant interpretation of Genesis 1-11, as is the habit of the people behind organizations like Answers in Genesis, is a sin of a most horrendous magnitude.

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

[PrincetonGuy]

When it comes to the Bible, I have been taught to believe that it is the Word of God. Since it is the Word of God, I believe it to be inerrant. I don't believe in compromising the Bible. By believing in evolution, I would be compromising the Word of God and just don't do that. Humans, animals, plants, and the universe were created in His image. We don't have to know why chimps have almost the same genes as we do. God wanted them that way. When a scientist starts talking about how evolution is right, I just take Ph. D. and make it into an acronym= pompous human dummies. I don't say that to be mean, it's just what pops in my head at the time. The Bible was written by the supernatural inspiration of God. You can try and tell me it wasn't, but I will not go against the Word of God.If the Bible was not inspired by God, then why is it the only book in the world to have had 2,000 prophecies fulfilled. Until you answer that question with a good answer, don't try refuting how the Bible was written.

I was taught to believe the same thing, but when I read and studied the Bible for myself I learned that the Bible does NOT teach some of things that I was taught by men. The Bible makes no claim whatsoever of inerrancy nor does it make any claim to be written, word for word, by God Himself. I believe Paul, not because he claimed to be writing under the inspiration of God (a claim that he never made), but because of the quality of his personal character and the part that his writings have played in the salvation of millions of men, women and children around the world. I believe Luke because, when everyone else had deserted Paul, Luke remained faithful to him and demonstrated that he was a Christian of the highest personal character,

2 Tim. 4:9. Make every effort to come to me soon;
10. for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.
11. Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. (NASB, 1995)

And I believe the Bible as a whole, when read it in the light of the wisdom and knowledge that God has blessed us with, because of the very nature of it. I also believe that, because the Biblical writers were inspired by God, the Bible deserves to be very carefully and very prayerfully read and studied by each one of us. I also believe that God has blessed us with scientists to help all of us live healthier and more productive lives and to help us come to a fuller knowledge of Him, His creation, and His message to us in the Bible that He has given to us.

[arunma]

Almost everyone here, including myself, will likely disagree with PrincetonGuy. But even as we do so, I would like to remind my fellow evangelical Christians of one thing. As we state our reasons for disbelieving in evolution, let us please not viciously attack him. All to often, theologically orthodox Christians will label dissenters as "liberals," and accuse them of being false Christians.

Remember: a Christian who believes in some incorrect doctrine is not necessarily a false believer. As we explain to PrincetonGuy why we reject evolution, let us please remember to do so in a spirit of love and not contempt (not that anyone here is yet guilty of this).

[LsforLove]

I think you have a wonderful oppertunity to write a paper on creation and the scientifice evidence that back it up...you can write a paper on the evolutionist theories that have been disproven...There are many great websites you can use....pm me if you need any.

if your paper is well written and throughly reserched, if it is scientifice in its content and not just writtien "I believe cause the Bible says"....but say I believe the Bible is true when it says, and here is the scientific evidences to support that belief. If it is written acoridnign the the classes specifications then it has too be graded on those same specification and you cant get a bad greade just because your teacher does not agree. I think it is a great opertunity to speak up for truth!!!

While I don’t agree with your stand point of YECism. I have to applauded your advice and what your advice says. To many times fundamentalist (not just Christians but everybody) assert that they are correct because of what they believe. Yet very rarely can provide evidence or reasons to believe them. I think it is important to provide evidence for what ever you believe.
To the OP the above advice is very good. However some teachers/professors will dock you no matter how well or correctly your research is documented and laid out. Make sure your teacher is willing to listen to ideas that he/she does not agree with because if they are not it is quite likely that you will not attain as high as a mark as you otherwise would if you just went with the flow.

[LsforLove]

In my professional opinion, Answers in Genesis is a fraudulent, pseudo-Christian cult that has done immeasurable damage to both the Christian faith and the natural sciences by making Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons in the late stages of dementia and by making scientists appear to be high school dropouts. Their handling the Holy Scriptures demonstrates a most severe disrespect for them and the God who inspired them. Their handing of science belittles the life time of learning of hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world and exalts a pack of fools who have been so severely blinded by the devil himself that they cannot see the significance of the data staring them in the face. Their so-called scientific papers demonstrate a most pathetic ignorance of the natural sciences and should most definitely not be confused with the real thing.

I respect the right of everyone to believe what they choose to believe, but to willfully and deliberately distort the facts in order to defend one’s personal and grossly ignorant interpretation of Genesis 1-11, as is the habit of the people behind organizations like Answers in Genesis, is a sin of a most horrendous magnitude.

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

Dr. Jay Johnson
Doctorate in entomology works part time at WSU and teaches at a private high school.

[PrincetonGuy]

Dr. Jay Johnson
Doctorate in entomology works part time at WSU and teaches at a private high school.

Working part time at WSU and teaching in a private high school comes very far short of being a professor of geology or biology teaching in a university.

[LsforLove]

Working part time at WSU and teaching in a private high school comes very far short of being a professor of geology or biology teaching in a university.

Not when you are teaching Masters Courses. Just because he feels called to work with teenaged children does not negate the fact that he is not the primary professor of 500+ level classes at a major state university

[PrincetonGuy]

Almost everyone here, including myself, will likely disagree with PrincetonGuy. But even as we do so, I would like to remind my fellow evangelical Christians of one thing. As we state our reasons for disbelieving in evolution, let us please not viciously attack him. All to often, theologically orthodox Christians will label dissenters as "liberals," and accuse them of being false Christians.

Remember: a Christian who believes in some incorrect doctrine is not necessarily a false believer. As we explain to PrincetonGuy why we reject evolution, let us please remember to do so in a spirit of love and not contempt (not that anyone here is yet guilty of this).

You have an excellent point here! On another Christian message board on which there are hundreds of registered Baptist members those who post in favor of the theory of evolution are castigated in a most vicious, libelous, and hateful manner on a regular basis, and the moderators and the administrators join right in, betraying their own members and feeding them to the wolves.

[PrincetonGuy]

Not when you are teaching Masters Courses. Just because he feels called to work with teenaged children does not negate the fact that he is not the primary professor of 500+ level classes at a major state university

WSU does not list a Jay Johnson as being a faculty member.

[arunma]

You have an excellent point here! On another Christian message board on which there are hundreds of registered Baptist members those who post in favor of the theory of evolution are castigated in a most vicious, libelous, and hateful manner on a regular basis, and the moderators and the administrators join right in, betraying their own members and feeding them to the wolves.

Well I'm sorry that you and many other brothers have experienced this from people who claim to be fellow Christians. Such behavior is reprehensible. Make no mistake, I do believe that evolution should be refuted on a Scriptural basis. And believers who accept evolution ought to be gently persuaded, if possible. But I do not believe that they should be put out of the church, or treated a second-class Christians. It says,
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
Now what is the doctrine that we have been taught? First and foremost, we have been taught about Christ, who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified on the cross for the forgiveness of sin, and was resurrected by God. We have been taught that the teaching of the Apostles is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the Prophets of Israel also spoke by the Holy Spirit. I think that a person who believes this can rightly be called a Christian, and anyone who tries to divide Christians by other means is causing unnecessary division in the church.

There are also creeds that Christians have invented over the centuries to define and the faith. Such things as the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Confession are all man-made tools that help us define the Christian faith.

So what about evolutionists in the church? I think they should be allowed to live and fellowship with us, so long as they believe in the fundamentals of the faith. On one hand, I do wish that they would abstain from teaching evolutionist doctrine in the church. However, what separates Christians from extremist cults, Islam, and other such things, is that we do not suppress dissenters. I think that discussion on the issue is healthy. And I am confident that if we are all believers in Christ (even the evolutionists), most people will be persuaded to believe that the Mosaic creation account is historically accurate. I am by no means afraid of discussing evolution.

There is one thing that troubles me about evolution. People who believe in it tend to also believe in other, more severe heterodox doctrines. For example, believers in evolution tend to claim that people can be saved apart from Christ, and I believe that such teaching is very dangerous. But even in this case, it is not evolution itself which is dangerous.

Is evolution wrong? Yes. But we ought to accept people who believe in it as brothers, because there are real heresies from which we must defend the church. Such things as sexual immorality, religious pluralism, and homosexuality threaten the modern church. And compared to such things, evolution is not by itself of much concern. Therefore I wish that Christians would persuade evolutionists to believe in Biblical creation, not out of hatred or contempt, but out of love. Those who believe in evolution, but who hold to the fundamentals of the faith, are genuinely brothers in Christ. So let us treat them as brothers, and not as Gentiles.

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe that it is important to remember that not too long ago the very large majority of scientists were Christians. Charles Darwin was one of those scientists. He entered college to prepare for the Christian ministry but became so fascinated by biology that he began studying more botany than he did theology. When he was invited to join the other naturalists aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he took his Bible with him but we don’t know very much about his Christian experiences during the voyage. However, we do know that during the voyage he made discoveries that led him to draw inescapable conclusions that deeply troubled him, and that he pondered these things for twenty years before he published his discoveries and his conclusions.

For the sake of the truth, in spite of the flak that he knew he would receive, and in spite of the upheaval that he knew would occur if he published his findings, Charles Darwin took courage and published his findings that have done more good for more people than the discoveries of almost any other scientist that has ever lived. Indeed, the principles of natural selection, worked out by Charles Darwin, are absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the world we live in and what we must do to preserve it.

Charles Darwin was castigated by many in the Christian community for sharing with the world the discoveries that he had made. Today, we find far fewer of our scientists in church on Sunday mornings.


Henry Morris, on the other hand, was a Christian hydraulic engineer who became an amateur geologist who was extremely disrespectful of professional geologists and other scientists in general and devoted his life to prove that they were wrong, causing the scientific community and the academic community at large to become increasingly hostile toward the message of the gospel of Christ. He also persuaded tens of thousands of young Christian men and women that one could not believe in both the Bible and evolution, and since these young men and women knew that the scientific data in support of evolution was nearly infinite, and that the scientific data proving that the flood depicted in the story of Noah’s Ark never occurred (and was an absolute impossibility) was conclusive, they chose to believe in evolution and set aside their Bibles—and ultimately their Christian faith.

[trinityisunity]

In my professional opinion, Answers in Genesis is a fraudulent, pseudo-Christian cult that has done immeasurable damage to both the Christian faith and the natural sciences by making Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons in the late stages of dementia and by making scientists appear to be high school dropouts. Their handling the Holy Scriptures demonstrates a most severe disrespect for them and the God who inspired them. Their handing of science belittles the life time of learning of hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world and exalts a pack of fools who have been so severely blinded by the devil himself that they cannot see the significance of the data staring them in the face. Their so-called scientific papers demonstrate a most pathetic ignorance of the natural sciences and should most definitely not be confused with the real thing.

I respect the right of everyone to believe what they choose to believe, but to willfully and deliberately distort the facts in order to defend one’s personal and grossly ignorant interpretation of Genesis 1-11, as is the habit of the people behind organizations like Answers in Genesis, is a sin of a most horrendous magnitude.

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.


I have a book called "In six days-Why scientists choose to believe in creation." This book contains 50 scientists with degrees in biology, geology chemistry, mathematics,physics, zoology, botany and medical reearchers and engineers including university professors. The book is edited by John F Ashton PhD.Published by Strand , Sydney, Australia.2003. Just to name a couple of the scientists:Henry Zuill, Biology professor at Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Ariel A Roth, Biology, past professor at Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Even though you believe the evolution theory you are still my brother in Christ, He loves you and so do we.Please give this book a read if you can get a hold of it.

[PrincetonGuy]

Well I'm sorry that you and many other brothers have experienced this from people who claim to be fellow Christians. Such behavior is reprehensible. Make no mistake, I do believe that evolution should be refuted on a Scriptural basis. And believers who accept evolution ought to be gently persuaded, if possible. But I do not believe that they should be put out of the church, or treated a second-class Christians. It says,I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (Romans 16:17)



Now what is the doctrine that we have been taught? First and foremost, we have been taught about Christ, who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified on the cross for the forgiveness of sin, and was resurrected by God. We have been taught that the teaching of the Apostles is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the Prophets of Israel also spoke by the Holy Spirit. I think that a person who believes this can rightly be called a Christian, and anyone who tries to divide Christians by other means is causing unnecessary division in the church.

There are also creeds that Christians have invented over the centuries to define and the faith. Such things as the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Confession are all man-made tools that help us define the Christian faith.

So what about evolutionists in the church? I think they should be allowed to live and fellowship with us, so long as they believe in the fundamentals of the faith. On one hand, I do wish that they would abstain from teaching evolutionist doctrine in the church. However, what separates Christians from extremist cults, Islam, and other such things, is that we do not suppress dissenters. I think that discussion on the issue is healthy. And I am confident that if we are all believers in Christ (even the evolutionists), most people will be persuaded to believe that the Mosaic creation account is historically accurate. I am by no means afraid of discussing evolution.

There is one thing that troubles me about evolution. People who believe in it tend to also believe in other, more severe heterodox doctrines. For example, believers in evolution tend to claim that people can be saved apart from Christ, and I believe that such teaching is very dangerous. But even in this case, it is not evolution itself which is dangerous.

Is evolution wrong? Yes. But we ought to accept people who believe in it as brothers, because there are real heresies from which we must defend the church. Such things as sexual immorality, religious pluralism, and homosexuality threaten the modern church. And compared to such things, evolution is not by itself of much concern. Therefore I wish that Christians would persuade evolutionists to believe in Biblical creation, not out of hatred or contempt, but out of love. Those who believe in evolution, but who hold to the fundamentals of the faith, are genuinely brothers in Christ. So let us treat them as brothers, and not as Gentiles.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. From my perspective, the number one threat that the Church is facing today is creationism, especially creationism that is antagonistic toward the natural sciences. I was one of countless young people who grew up believing that the Christian faith was absolutely nothing but mindless stupidity for the precise reason that the Christians with whom I came in contact were creationists who knew little or nothing about science but fiercely opposed it.

By the grace of God, He made Himself real to me but creationist teachings were a very serious stumbling block to me. My Christian friends, thinking that they were doing me a favor, asked me to read books by the likes of Henry Morris and his gang and their disrespect for both an academic view of science and an academic view of the Bible deeply troubled me and I wanted no part of them or their ridiculous religious beliefs. Indeed, I frequently found it necessary to separate in my mind their ridiculous religious beliefs from the Bible itself.

My academic pursuit of Biblical knowledge has greatly helped me to have a firm conviction of Biblical truths, but even today I occasionally find it necessary to remind myself that there is a very sharp distinction between creationism and Biblical truth, and that creationism is nothing but an archaic and very naïve interpretation of the Bible.

The worst of it, however, is that I am surrounded by young people who do not believe the Bible largely due to the fact that creationists have made the Bible appear to them to be nothing but a silly old book that is of no relevance today. Creationists need to take a closer, more objective look at both science and the Bible and the highly destructive impact that their theology is having on young people today. Teaching creationism does absolutely nothing to further the gospel of Christ, but it does an immense amount of harm to it. Young people need to understand that they have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that the wages of sin is death, and that Jesus paid the penalty of death for each and every one of them, but that they must personally receive that redemption through faith in Christ. Adding to that message a ridiculously archaic interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis makes a mockery of that message and destroys its influence.

[Dmckay]

Regarding my mathematical biology class, I seem to have found myself in a possible dilemma. As a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrent words of God, I obviously do not believe in evolution. Unfortunately, I may have to write a final paper on a topic regarding evolution. Now, I'm not one to preach creationism, since such discussions often cause the Gospel to take a back seat. But by no means does this mean that I actually believe in any form of evolution. Since Jesus must be the Lord of our lives in all areas, I obviously cannot compartmentalize religion and science, and ignore the words of God while in the classroom.

Fortunately, it happens to be the case that I could easily choose a topic which doesn't involve evolution, so this dilemma isn't too significant of an issue. But it has raised the question in my mind: how is a Christian to deal with this?
I have found that arguing against evolution with someone who is puffed up with their "worldly wisdom" of Science and Math by using Scripture usually gets you no where fast. Since they reject the source and argument of Scripture they usually dismiss you out of hand without even considering your arguments. This same has proven true many times for people I know trying to prove the existence of G-d in Philosophy classes.

The best way I know is to approach them from their own point of view and show them the illogical fallacies of their position. A great source for doing this is a terrific little book entitled The Illustrated ORIGINS Answer Book by Paul S. Taylor . This is a 128 page book that is jampacked with scientific arguments against evolution. The best part is that more than half the book consists of detailed reference notes, sources and quotations which support Creation and point out the inconsistencies of evolution.

The book is available from Eden Publications P.O. Box 41644
Mesa, Arizona 85274-1644. Cancel that, I tried to find a phone number for them and can't find a listing for them in Arizona. However, the book, now in its 5th edition is available at this URL:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-or.html

I was going to type out the Chapter contents and some samples of the available information in this book, but you can check it out at the URL above. I have placed copies of this book in the library of every church I have been affiliated with in any capacity.

[Project 86]

I was brought up to believe evolution all my life, and while I am beginning to refute it, I still cannot get over the fact that Chimps have 99% of the exact same DNA that we do. Maybe God just made them very similiar to us for a reason unknown to man. I can speculate all day long, I will never know while on this earth.

Actually they don't share 99% of the exact DNA. If you want to read more I wrote an article on this a while back. You can read it here (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/DNA.pdf).

[Project 86]

The biggest mistake Christians mistake is thinking that Science is "bad". Fact is..Science is a tool like any other. It helps us to KNOW God more through his creations.
I do believe (as it is PROVEN) that our bodies do change to our enviroments. That's a fact. It's science. And it's how God made it to be. Science and God work hand in hand...science is merely the "HOW" to God's creations. :)

I totally agree with you. This coming from a man that denies goo to man evolution and the idea of billions of years. Think about that one for a bit. :thumbsup:

[Project 86]

In my professional opinion, Answers in Genesis is a fraudulent, pseudo-Christian cult that has done immeasurable damage to both the Christian faith and the natural sciences by making Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons in the late stages of dementia and by making scientists appear to be high school dropouts. Their handling the Holy Scriptures demonstrates a most severe disrespect for them and the God who inspired them. Their handing of science belittles the life time of learning of hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world and exalts a pack of fools who have been so severely blinded by the devil himself that they cannot see the significance of the data staring them in the face. Their so-called scientific papers demonstrate a most pathetic ignorance of the natural sciences and should most definitely not be confused with the real thing.

I respect the right of everyone to believe what they choose to believe, but to willfully and deliberately distort the facts in order to defend one’s personal and grossly ignorant interpretation of Genesis 1-11, as is the habit of the people behind organizations like Answers in Genesis, is a sin of a most horrendous magnitude.

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

Here my friends is your typical ad hominem attack on people that disagree with goo to man evolution. I don't know why they resort to these unchristian like tatics but I think it shows you what kind of evidence evolution really has. There are plenty of Ph. D scientists in fields like chemistry, geology and biology that deny goo to man evolution and even deny billions of years. Some are not even Christians. I might add there are many great theologians that support the ideas of Answers In Genesis. From John MacArthur of today to Martin Luther and John Calvin in times old.

[PrincetonGuy]

I have a book called "In six days-Why scientists choose to believe in creation." This book contains 50 scientists with degrees in biology, geology chemistry, mathematics,physics, zoology, botany and medical reearchers and engineers including university professors. The book is edited by John F Ashton PhD.Published by Strand , Sydney, Australia.2003. Just to name a couple of the scientists:Henry Zuill, Biology professor at UnionCollege, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Ariel A Roth, Biology, past professor at Loma Linda University, CA USA.

I wrote,

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska, is a very small Seventh-day Adventist college that has neither a biology department nor a geology department and it is NOT a university.

Loma Linda University is a health sciences university and is part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's system of higher education. This university has neither a biology department nor a geology department, but it does have a VERY small Department of Earth and Biological Sciences with only eight professors, and Ariel A. Roth is NOT one of them today.

Even though you believe the evolution theory you are still my brother in Christ, He loves you and so do we.Please give this book a read if you can get a hold of it.

The actual title of the book is, In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Dr. Colin Groves, a paleoanthropologist and Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University, wrote a review in which he exposes this book for what it really is. You can read his lengthy and very detailed review at,

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm

For your convenience, here are three of the paragraphs from that review,

“Science is a process of finding out. Pseudoscience is a process of collecting evidence to support a prior belief. Science tests a hypothesis by seeing if it fits the available data; if it doesn’t the hypothesis will be discarded or modified. Pseudoscience tests data by seeing if they fit the favoured hypothesis; if they don’t, it is the data (not the hypothesis) that will be discarded or modified. As creationism is the most pervasive (and, arguably, the most blatant and most harmful) example of a pseudoscience, it is difficult to see how any scientist could be a creationist.”

“But now, it seems, our challenge has been answered, our bluff has been called. Here are 50 scientists - sorry, 50 people with scientific training and often working as professional scientists - who have been discovered by John F.Ashton, PhD, to be creationists, and persuaded by him to tell us why. So let us learn from the experience: who are they, what is their expertise and training, and why indeed are they creationists?

“Most of the fifty are Australians or Americans; there is also the odd Brit, Canadian, South African or German. Their testimonials, which vary from two to twenty pages long, are divided into two groups, "Science and origins" and "Religion and origins", but there is not really very much difference between the two. There are 9 biologists, 13 others connected with the life sciences, and 28 working in other sciences. Of the "other life scientists" (not strict biologists), five were trained in biochemistry, two in medicine, two in horticultural/agricultural science, and one each in genetics, organic chemistry, forestry and orthodontics. Of the 28 - the majority - trained in some field other than the life sciences, we have six trained in chemistry (not organic), five in some form of engineering, five in some branch of physics, three in meteorology, three in geology, two in geophysics, and one each in mathematics, geography, hydrometallurgy and information science. One might well ask what precisely an inorganic chemist or a hydrometallurgist might know about the evolution of life that would qualify them to speak about it with knowledge and wisdom, and one of the engineers, Stanley A.Mumma, quite unashamedly admits that his profession is unusually prone to creationism: "Engineers quite often need confidence in the literal accuracy of the Genesis account, while people educated in many other disciplines are quite satisfied to take it as allegory" (pp.300-1). But about a biologist or a geologist one can have no doubts: in theory, at least, they have the training and experience to know what they are talking about.”

“Put them in perspective a bit. Of those nine biologists, five were trained at least in part at religious foundation universities or colleges of one kind or another: one at Loma Linda, one at Pacific Union College, one at both Andrews University and George Mason University, two at Wheaton College (and one of them at Houghton College in addition); only four received their entire training at what I’d call "proper universities", and some of them specify that their classes in evolution were poor in some way - a hectoring or poorly prepared lecturer, for instance. Of the 12 (excluding Hosken) others connected with the life sciences, four were trained at religious institutions (Loma Linda and Andrews again, Dordt College, and Loyola University), and eight at "proper universities". Of the other 28, only three trained at religious institutions (Loyola again, Loma Linda yet again, and Phillips University), and all the rest went to mainline universities, polytechnics and so on. Could there be some significance here? Might it be that a biologist is much less inclined than others to be a creationist unless actually trained at an institution with a creationist tendency?”

Some of the other paragraphs are full of highly relevant and very juicy facts that every Christian should know about this book.

[PrincetonGuy]

Here my friends is your typical ad hominem attack on people that disagree with goo to man evolution. I don't know why they resort to these unchristian like tatics but I think it shows you what kind of evidence evolution really has.

I am not attacking you or anyone else—I am only posting the truth about the deliberately dishonest tactics employed by some organizations that are willing to commit any sin necessary to defend their interpretation of Genesis 1-11. I fully realize that the typical layman does not know enough about biology or geology to see that Answers in Genesis regularly makes a practice of deliberately and willfully distorting the significance and reasonable interpretation of scientific data and that their articles make a mockery of the natural sciences. I also fully realize that the typical layman does not have enough knowledge of ancient Hebrew literature to see how Answers in Genesis not only makes a mockery of Biblical hermeneutics, but a mockery of the Book of Genesis. Most people believe what they want to believe and they are not willing to invest many years and $150,000 in getting a good education in both biology and Biblical exegesis in order to have the background and the tools necessary to evaluate for themselves the relevant data. However, nothing that I have posted on this message board in any way reflects the kind of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. That is an entirely different subject, a subject that cannot be coherently debated with laymen who lack the necessary background in the natural sciences to understand the issues involved.

There are plenty of Ph. D scientists in fields like chemistry, geology and biology that deny goo to man evolution and even deny billions of years. Some are not even Christians. I might add there are many great theologians that support the ideas of Answers In Genesis. From John MacArthur of today to Martin Luther and John Calvin in times old.

Some people who make a mockery of the natural sciences and the degrees earned by more than 99.9% of scientists turn right around and call to the witness stand a handful of quacks with Ph.D.’s who are academic failures for whom the academic world holds nothing but contempt.

As a biologist who specialized in evolutionary biology, I know first hand the character of men of science, and with very few exceptions they have a very deep appreciation of and respect for the truth. As a Christian who specialized in Biblical exegesis and translation theory I know first hand the character of many Christian creationists and I have found them, for the most part, to be so obsessed with their archaic and ill-informed interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that they have allowed that obsession to cause them to deliberately and willfully misrepresent the facts to defend their interpretation that they most woefully mistake for the “Word of God.”

[PrincetonGuy]

In an earlier post I quoted from a book review of In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. This book review was written by Dr. Colin Groves, a paleoanthropologist and Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University. I would like, in this post, to present to you a list of recent publications by this scientist:

RECENT PUBLICATIONS BY DR. COLIN GROVES

1995 Microtaxonomy and its implications for captive breeding. Pp 24-28 in U.Ganslosser, J.K.Hodges & W.Kaumanns (eds.), Research and Captive Propagation. Fürth: Filander Verlag.

1996 (with J.Shoshani, E.L.Simons & G.F.Gunnell). Primate phylogeny: morphological vs molecular results. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 5:102-154.

1996 Taxonomic diversity in Arabian gazelles: the state of the art. Pp. 8-39 in A.Greth, C.Magin & M.Ancrenaz (eds.), Conservation of Arabian Gazelles. National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

1996 Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed conservation of the specific name. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 53:24-7.

1996 (with A.Gentry & J.Clutton-Brock). Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic anaimals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 53:28-37.

1996 (with P.M.Goonan & R.D.Smith). Karyotype polymorphism in the Slender Loris (Loris tardigradus). Folia primatologica, 65:100-9.

1996 The nomenclature of the Tanzanian Mangabey and the Siberut Macaque. Australian Primatology, 10, 4:2-5.

1996 Great Apes: the conflict of gene-pools, conservation and personhood. Perspectives in Human Biology 2:31-36.

1996 Hovering on the brink: nearly but not quite getting to Australia. Perspectives in Human Biology, 2:83-7.

1996 From Ussher to Slusher; from Archbish to Gish; or, not in a million years... Archaeology in Oceania 31:145-151.

1996 The taxonomy of the Asian Wild Buffalo from the Asian mainland. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 61:327-338.

1997 Major biogeographic regions of the world. Section of article "Biosphere". Pp 1160-1167 (vol.14) in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 15th edition.

1997 Rediscovery of the wild pig Sus bucculentus. Nature, 386:335.

1997 Taxonomy of wild pigs (Sus) of the Philippines. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 120:163-191.

1997 Taxonomy and phylogeny of Primates. In A.Blancher, J.Klein & W.W.Socha (eds.), Molecular Biology and Evolution of Blood Group and MHC Antigens in Primates. Berlin: Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg and New York, pp.3-23. [ISBN 3-540-61636-5. 3 Parts in book; Part 1 has 1 chapter (the one by me, Part 2 has 9 chapters, Part 3 has 9 chapters. Chapters are numbered sequentially by Part].

1997 The taxonomy of Arabian Gazelles. In K.Habibi, A.H.Abuzinada & I.A.Nader (eds.), The Gazelles of Arabia, Riyadh: National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Publication No.29, English Series, pp.24-51 [ISBN 9960-614-06-9. 12 chapters in book].

1997 Thinking about evolutionary change: the polarity of our ancestors. In G.A.Clark and C.M.Willermet (eds), Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins. Aldine de Gruyter, N.Y., 1997, pp 319-326. [ISBN 0-2-1-02040-1. 29 chapters in book].

1997 Species concept in palaeoanthropology. Perspectives in Human Biology, 3:13-20.

1997 Leopard-cats, Prionailurus bengalensis (Carnivora: Felidae) from Indonesia and the Philippines, with the description of two new subspecies. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 62:330-338.

1998 The proximal ulna from Klasies River. Journal of Human Evolution, 34:119-121.
1997 Taxonomy and phylogeny of Primates. In A.Blancher, J.Klein & W.W.Socha (eds.), Molecular Biology and Evolution of Blood Group and MHC Antigens in Primates. Berlin: Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg and New York, pp.3-23. [ISBN 3-540-61636-5. 3 Parts in book; Part 1 has 1 chapter (the one by me, Part 2 has 9 chapters, Part 3 has 9 chapters. Chapters are numbered sequentially by Part].

1997 The taxonomy of Arabian Gazelles. In K.Habibi, A.H.Abuzinada & I.A.Nader (eds.), The Gazelles of Arabia, Riyadh: National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Publication No.29, English Series, pp.24-51 [ISBN 9960-614-06-9. 12 chapters in book].

1997 Thinking about evolutionary change: the polarity of our ancestors. In G.A.Clark and C.M.Willermet (eds), Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins. Aldine de Gruyter, N.Y., 1997, pp 319-326. [ISBN 0-2-1-02040-1. 29 chapters in book].

1997 Species concept in palaeoanthropology. Perspectives in Human Biology, 3:13-20.

1997 Leopard-cats, Prionailurus bengalensis (Carnivora: Felidae) from Indonesia and the Philippines, with the description of two new subspecies. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 62:330-338.

1998 The proximal ulna from Klasies River. Journal of Human Evolution, 34:119-121.

1998 Systematics of Tarsiers and Lorises. Primates, 39:13-27.

1988 (with M.Goodman, C.A.Porter, J.Czelusniak, S.L.Page, H.Schneider, J.Shoshani and G.Gunnell). Toward a phylogenetic classification of Primates based on DNA evidence complemented by fossil evidence. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 9:585-598.

1998 (with H.Mendelssohn and B.Shalmon). A new subspecies of Gazella gazella from the southern Negev. Isreal Journal of Zoology, 43:209-215.

1999 Die Nashörner - Stammesgeschichte und Verwandtschaft. In Anonymous (ed.), Die Nashörner: Begegnung mit urzeitlichen Kolossen, 14-32. Furth: Filander Verlag. [ISBN 3-930831-06-6. 19 chapters in book].

1999 (with T.F.Flannery). A revision of the genus Zaglossus (Monotremata, Tachyglossidae), with description of new species and subspecies. Mammalia, 62:367-396.

1999 The advantages and disadvantages of being domesticated (A Keynote Address). Perspectives in Human Biology, 4:1-12.

1999 Australopithecus garhi: a new-found link? Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 19, 3:10-13.

1999 Nomenclature of African Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 37:869-872.

1999 (with A.Thorne). The terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene populations of northern Africa. Homo, 50, 3:249-262. [ISSN 0018-442X].

2000 (with P.Grubb, J.P.Dudley & J.Shoshani). Living African elephants belong to two species: Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach, 1797) and Loxodonta cyclotis (Matschie, 1900). Elephant, 2, 4:1-4. [ISSN 0737-108X].

2000 (with P.Grubb), Do Loxodonta cyclotis and L.africana interbreed? Elephant, 2, 4:4-7. [ISSN 0737-108X].

2000 What are the elephants of West Africa? Elephant, 2, 4:7-8. [ISSN 0737-108X]

2000 (with P.Grubb). Are there Pygmy Elephants? Elephant, 2, 4:8-10. [ISSN 0737-108X].

2000 Phylogenetic relationships within recent Antilopini (Bovidae). In E.S.Vrba and G.B.Schaller (eds.), Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives, 223-233. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. [ISBN 0-300-08142-1. 23 chapters in book].

2000 (with G.B.Schaller). The phylogeny and biogeography of the newly discovered Annamite artiodactyls. In E.S.Vrba and G.B.Schaller (eds.), Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives, 261-282. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. [ISBN 0-300-08142-1. 23 chapters in book].

2000 Phylogeny of the Cercopithecoidea. In P.Whitehead and C.J.Jolly, eds., Old World Monkeys, 77-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ISBN: 0 521 57124 3. 27 chapters in book].

2000 (with O.A.Ryder). Systematics and phylogeny of the horse. In A.T.Bowling and A.Ruvinsky (eds.), The Genetics of the Horse, 1-24. Wallingford (Oxon., U.K.) & New York: CABI Publishing. [ISBN 0 85199 429 6. 18 chapters in book].

2000 (with A.Thorne). The affinities of the Klasies River Mouth remains. In J.S.Chisholm (ed.), Towards Consilience: Perspectives in Human Biology, 5:43-53. [ISBN 1 7405 2 028 9. 6 chapters in book].

2000 (with M.Chech, A.Thorne & E.Trinkaus). A new reconstruction of the Shanidar 5 cranium. Paléorient, 25:143-146. [ISSN 0513-9345]

2000 The genus Cheirogaleus: unrecognised biodiversity in Dwarf Lemurs. International Journal of Primatology, 21:943-962.

I am sorry, but this is the most recent list that I have.

[tamtam92]

I know a retired professor of biology who was a professor ("maître de conférences") in a french small university (but all our universities are small compared to the americans). He wasn't allowed to have a better job because of his beliefs. I also know a christian genetics research worker at CNRS, which is the biggest french national lab.
I just say that because you asked, i don't believe it proves anything - but that one can be a creationist and a real scientist.

You don't have to worry, french scientists are very closed to creationism. Whenever you read about the debate they criticize the idea of 'intelligent design', and even i've read they thought evolution wasn't taught enough in our schools. Yet i've never read any argument that deeply shaked my belief and literal understanding of the Bible.

[PrincetonGuy]

I know a retired professor of biology who was a professor ("maître de conférences") in a french small university (but all our universities are small compared to the americans). He wasn't allowed to have a better job because of his beliefs. I also know a christian genetics research worker at CNRS, which is the biggest french national lab.
I just say that because you asked, i don't believe it proves anything - but that one can be a creationist and a real scientist.

I wrote,

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

There is a huge difference between a retired lecturer and a current professor of biology teaching in a university today. There many Christians who are professors of biology teaching in universities today or working in other jobs but they do NOT that believe that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

You don't have to worry, french scientists are very closed to creationism. Whenever you read about the debate they criticize the idea of 'intelligent design', and even i've read they thought evolution wasn't taught enough in our schools. Yet i've never read any argument that deeply shaked my belief and literal understanding of the Bible.

The Biblical hermeneutic applied by creationists to Genesis 1-11 and the other relevant passages in the Bible have been absolutely proven, when applied to other historical passages in the Bible, to yield a VERY WRONG interpretation. Indeed, when the exact same hermeneutic is applied to other historical passages in the Bible, we find that the earth is relatively small, very flat, and covered by a dome inside of which are the sun, the moon, several planets, and the stars—all of which are revolving around the earth. The early scientists who challenged this “literal understanding of the Bible” were severely persecuted, some of them unto death. And even today there are many flat-earthers who are persecuting those Christians who have dared to pray and believe God for a more accurate understanding of the Bible and His creation.


I believe that God, according to His sovereign will, has chosen to progressively bless us with a knowledge of the earth and its place in His creation. When I am out collecting rocks for my garden and pick up an interesting rock I look at it and ponder the fact that it is many millions of years old and I marvel at the fact that God has blessed me with the ability to pick up something so very old and hold it in my hand and enjoy it and then take it home and set it in my garden. When I go out to my garden at night and gaze up into the heavens that God created and realize that I am standing on a creation of His that He created 4.5 billion years ago and partake of the fantastic beauty of the sky that is even very much older, I can not help but marvel at the indescribable majesty and glory of God.

Why did God create our solar system? What was he doing before He created it, and what else has He created? I do not know the answers, but I know that we have a great big wonderful God!


Thank you for sharing with us your view on this matter and the Christian spirit in which you shared it.

[tamtam92]

Well i mentioned it because he's not been retired for a long time so i thought it was the same... but it's OK if you don't care.

I don't want to debate here. I've taken part in this debate in the origins forum (i don't remember the exact name, it was the christian one).Yet for months i haven't had time enough to go back there.

I'm pleased if you want to serve God, but alas, good will doesn't always mean you're right.

[catch21wide]

Hey Princetonguy. Yeah I'm calling you out. By what you just wrote, I am shocked that a fellow believer in Christ would write that. God didn't give us evolution. Evolution was founded by a man who at first was a christian, but later became an athiest after the death of one of his daughters. Like I said in an earlier post, God created everything in HIS image. There are some things in this world that He just don't want us to know. I don't believe that the Earth has been here billions of years. I will find out the true answer to that when I get to Heaven. I'm not trying to be rude, but I am just saying what looks to be evident at this time. Princetonguy, you are just one of those liberal baptists who is compromising the Word of God. By believing in evolution one is compromising the Word of God and saying the Bible contains errors. In conclusion, I have just one thing to say. When Jesus returns to the Earth that His Father CREATED, the evolution believers will know once and for all that evolution is wrong and right now I have a feeling that Darwin himself is paying the price for what he did.

[catch21wide]

Hey Princetonguy. If I said anything to in my last post to offend you, I do apologize. You just have to see where some people like me are coming from when we try our best to defend God's Word. We try and not get agitated, but sometimes we do. It is true that liberals compromise the Word of God and I don't believe in doing that. I hope you accept my apology.

[JPPT1974]

Here my friends is your typical ad hominem attack on people that disagree with goo to man evolution. I don't know why they resort to these unchristian like tatics but I think it shows you what kind of evidence evolution really has. There are plenty of Ph. D scientists in fields like chemistry, geology and biology that deny goo to man evolution and even deny billions of years. Some are not even Christians. I might add there are many great theologians that support the ideas of Answers In Genesis. From John MacArthur of today to Martin Luther and John Calvin in times old.

Sometimes science is good
But as long as it doesnt' compromise
The ways and truth of what the Lord is
And does!

[PrincetonGuy]

Hey Princetonguy. If I said anything to in my last post to offend you, I do apologize. You just have to see where some people like me are coming from when we try our best to defend God's Word. We try and not get agitated, but sometimes we do. It is true that liberals compromise the Word of God and I don't believe in doing that. I hope you accept my apology.

Like all too many other Christian fundamentalists, you are confusing your own very archaic, naïve, and indefensible interpretation of the Bible with what is actually taught in the Bible. As I have posted above in another post, the Bible makes no claim whatsoever of inerrancy from the modern, human perspective of accuracy. If believing the Bible over the doctrines of fundamentalist radicals makes me a liberal, I give all the glory to God that I am a liberal. However, from the point of view of liberal theologians I am an ultra-conservative who has his head in the sand and who refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of contemporary Biblical scholarship that denies the divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, and His resurrection!

One fact, however, is undeniable. And that fact is that the teaching of creationism does absolutely nothing to further the gospel and it is the very cause why every year hundreds of thousands of Christian young people raised in the homes of Christian fundamentalists are turning away from their faith upon encountering the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory of evolution. The answer to this problem is a very simple and proven answer that really works—and that answer is to teach our young people what the Bible actually teaches and leave out the nonsense that it does not teach. No one needs to believe in Noah’s Ark to be saved—but EVERYONE needs to believe in the cross of Christ to be saved. And when the story of Noah’s Ark is added to the gospel, the consequence is the rejection of Christ and His atoning death on the cross for our sins. This is not the fault of the evolutionists because the theory of evolution, true or false, is absolutely irrelevant to the truth of the gospel. It is exclusively the fault of Christian fundamentalists who are teaching our young people the lie that they need to choose to believe in either evolution or the Bible, and who destroy their credibility as both parents and Christians by believing foolish nonsense rather than an academically sound interpretation of the Bible.

I am vigorously defending the Bible and its teaching and vigorously opposing an archaic, naïve, and indefensible interpretation of the Bible that is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of people rejecting the gospel of Christ and consequently being damned to the fires of hell for eternity.

[PrincetonGuy]

Hey Princetonguy. Yeah I'm calling you out. By what you just wrote, I am shocked that a fellow believer in Christ would write that. God didn't give us evolution. Evolution was founded by a man who at first was a christian, but later became an athiest after the death of one of his daughters.

You are absolutely right! God did NOT give us evolution! Evolution is a theory of science that is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and over 99.9% of biologists and geologists who have earned a Ph.D. in biology or geology and an even greater percentage of biologists and geologists who currently hold professorships in our universities today. If there was just one chance in a billion that the theory is nothing but a lie, as taught by fundamentalists, we would have hundreds if not thousands of biologists and geologists who have earned a Ph.D. in biology or geology trying to be the first to expose the theory of evolution as a lie.

Most unfortunately a handful of very naïve but highly influential people have brainwashed millions of fundamentalists into believing that the theory of evolution contradicts the Bible when in fact it merely contradicts an archaic, naïve, and indefensible interpretation of the Bible that is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of people rejecting the gospel of Christ and consequently being damned to the fires of hell for eternity.

[Joykins]

Also, recently a Christian friend at work and myself were talking about evolution (I was explaining how I didn't believe in it, and something I add with non-Christians in addition to God is that all science has to be PROVEN. We can't recreate evolution in a lab, now can we?)

Sure we can. Unless when you say "evolution" you really mean something more specific.


and she said her thirteen year old daughter said something about evolution that was wonderful. She said, "Mom, if some believe that we are evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

The theory of evolution does not claim we are evolved from monkeys.

[Project 86]

The theory of evolution does not claim we are evolved from monkeys.

It says we evolved from ape like creatures.

[Joykins]

It says we evolved from ape like creatures.

The question, "why are monkeys still around?" is adequately explained under evolutionary theory. The answer is: monkeys, are, like us, an end-point of their own evolutionary development, although they and humans have a common ancestor that was neither human nor monkey.

[arunma]

The question, "why are monkeys still around?" is adequately explained under evolutionary theory. The answer is: monkeys, are, like us, an end-point of their own evolutionary development, although they and humans have a common ancestor that was neither human nor monkey.

Actually...

Assuming evolutionary theory were true (which it isn't, of course ;) ), I'm fairly certain that there isn't any end-point to the evolution of an individual species. Theoretically, humans could continue to evolve into another species. But of course, we happen to have a biologist on this thread, so perhaps he can clarify what I've said.

After all, though you want to defend evolution, and I want to refute it, it is important for both of us to fully understand the theory first.

[handmaiden97]

Thanks everyone for the responses.



You know, you've given me an interesting idea. Unfortunately, this paper is worth the majority of my grade for the class. But as I said earlier, it wasn't that big of an issue, since in this case, I could simply choose a topic that has nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps I could write two papers, one for a grade (having nothing to do with evolution, of course), and one for an explanation of why I do not believe in evolution. Do you think this would be a good way to witness to Christ? Or would it simply be seen as foolishness?


sorry I was not here to respond sooner. I think it would be a great idea, and as you resuerch the scientific evidences that refutes evolution it will surely strenghten your faith. Who knows maybe even it will minister to your teacher. I know of a man who came to christ when he bagan to see the errors in the evolution theory. Once people understand evolution is not fact and begin to see the world was designed and not an accident, it makes you realize their much me a designor.

debating with him would not be loving but sharing your beleifs in a respectful way is a good thing!

[98cwitr]

Actually they don't share 99% of the exact DNA. If you want to read more I wrote an article on this a while back. You can read it here (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/DNA.pdf).

good article, thanks!

[PrincetonGuy]

sorry I was not here to respond sooner. I think it would be a great idea, and as you resuerch the scientific evidences that refutes evolution it will surely strenghten your faith. Who knows maybe even it will minister to your teacher. I know of a man who came to christ when he bagan to see the errors in the evolution theory. Once people understand evolution is not fact and begin to see the world was designed and not an accident, it makes you realize their much me a designor.

debating with him would not be loving but sharing your beleifs in a respectful way is a good thing!

There is no scientific or Biblical data that refutes the theory of evolution. There are, however, literally millions of volumes of scientific data that support the theory of evolution. And there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that refutes the theory of evolution. The arguments from both science and the Bible used to disprove the theory of evolution are based upon serious misunderstandings of both science and the Bible. It is not just a coincidence that 99.9% of biologist and geologists who have earned a Ph.D. firmly believe in the theory of evolution, and that the very large majority of the scholars of the Old Testament believe that Genesis 1-11 belongs to the genre of literature known as “epic literature,” and that the stories in that part of Genesis have very little if any basis of historical fact.

There is no question whatsoever that in order to have the genetic diversity present today that it would have been necessary for more than 1.5 million genetically discrete populations of animals to have been aboard the Ark had there been a world-wide flood that covered the highest mountains. Creation “scientists” know this for a fact but they throw up a smoke screen for the layman saying the “kinds” in the Bible does not equal “species.” Of course “kinds” in the Bible does not equal “species” but that fact could not possibly be more irrelevant and every creation “scientist” knows that for a fact but they are not about to admit it to the lay population. And they compound this deception by arguing that the “kinds” in Genesis are really “families” of animals even though they know for a fact that they are arguing for a genetic impossibility. This is nothing but deliberate and willful deception. But the more one studies the writings of creation “scientists” and checks out their claims, the more and more they will learn that their claims are fraudulent, deliberate and willful deception.

Not long ago the Institution for Creation Research had to completely redo their web page after they were exposed for grossly misrepresenting the academic qualifications and appointments of the creation “scientists” living today. To deliberately and willfully represent a teacher in a two-year community college as a professor of geology at a major university is nothing short of outright fraud! And to do this on a regular and consistent basis as a matter of course is absolutely reprehensible. But when one has no data and no authorities on their side, what else can they do but deliberately and willfully distort and mishandle the data and deceive the gullible public into believing that there is a disagreement among scientists today regarding the validity of the theory of evolution? However, even after all of their gross exaggerations regarding the academic qualifications and appointments of the creation “scientists” living today, they still have only a few dozen of them opposed to well over 100,000 real scientists all over the world. Therefore they lie some more and falsely claim that the number of scientists who believe in young earth creationism is growing when in fact it is rapidly declining to near zero. When one has the truth on his side, he does not have to lie to defend his position.

I do not know a whole lot about the quilt-making techniques in 17th century Virginia, and for me to argue with those who do would only make my ignorance of the subject more and more obvious. When sharing the gospel with those who need to hear it and believe it, I do not believe it is particularly helpful to make a fool of one’s self.

[PrincetonGuy]

Actually...

Assuming evolutionary theory were true (which it isn't, of course ;) ), I'm fairly certain that there isn't any end-point to the evolution of an individual species. Theoretically, humans could continue to evolve into another species. But of course, we happen to have a biologist on this thread, so perhaps he can clarify what I've said.

After all, though you want to defend evolution, and I want to refute it, it is important for both of us to fully understand the theory first.

The ability for any population of plants or animals to evolve is dependent upon the genetic diversity in that population and upon changes in the environment of that population. There is on the internet a very good document on evolution prepared for the general public by delegates representing eight scientific societies. These societies have all endorsed the final document and are as follows:

American Society of Naturalists
Animal Behavior Society
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Paleontological Society
Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society for the Study of Evolution

Additional endorsement by:

American Institute of Biological Sciences

This document is nearly 90 pages long, but it is an excellent introduction to the theory of evolution. Here is the table of contents:

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PREAMBLE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
III. WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY?
A. Subdisciplines of Evolutionary Biology
B. Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology
IV. HOW IS EVOLUTION STUDIED?
V. WHY IS EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY IMPORTANT?
VI. HOW DOES EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY?
A. Human Health and Medicine
B. Agriculture and Natural Resources
C. Finding Useful Natural Products
D. Environment and Conservation
E. Applications beyond Biology
F. Understanding Humanity
VII. HOW DOES EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY CONTRIBUTE TO BASIC SCIENCE?
A. A. Accomplishments in the Study of Evolution
B. B. Contributions to Other Biological Disciplines
VIII. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY?
A. A. Applied Science
B. B. Basic Science
IX. MECHANISMS FOR MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE
A. Advancing Understanding through Research
B. Advancing Understanding through Education
C. Advancing Understanding through Communication
X. CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
I. EVOLUTION: FACT, THEORY, CONTROVERSY
II. HOW THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED
III. GLOSSARY OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS


Here is the link to this document:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html

[gwilenius]

Consider writing about microevolution, which is a proven fact. In writing your paper, you can argue that "evolution" as it is taught promotes genetic advancement, but in reality, all species have genetic loss as time goes on (e.g. dogs have less genetic information than wolves - wolves have genetic material to produce any breed of dog, but you will never be able to produce a wolf from any combination of purebred dogs). You could tie this in with chaos theory and entropy, but a more biblical relation would be one of death and decay through sin (entropy is just one "natural" process through which sin works). I think this would be an interesting topic, prove a point of de-evolution and counter evolution head-on using the same scientific tools evolution uses to make its assertions. You can easily trash evolution without using scripture.

[PrincetonGuy]

You can easily trash evolution without using scripture.

Yes, one can if his reader knows nothing about evolution. But, of course, if he does, one will only be making a ludicrous fool of one’s self! BAD, BAD idea! :eek:

[gwilenius]

Yes, one can if his reader knows nothing about evolution. But, of course, if he does, one will only be making a ludicrous fool of one’s self! BAD, BAD idea! :eek:
Why is that? Macroevolution is just an extrapolation of microevolution - Evolution relies on the unproven (and unprovable) principles of uniformalism. There is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but little for macroevolution. Assuming you accept uniformalism and assuming you accept significant gaps in fossil record, then it is relatively easy to accept evolution - I am suggesting focussing the report around these aspects.

Or are you implying that discrediting evolution without scripture is a bad idea? I know a great number of researchers who, just on the mention of the Bible, they will slam shut the door of reasonable discourse based on their preconceptions or malconclusions the Bible is not a reliable source of information. I prefer to open doors slowly rather than pounding through;

[Project 86]

The question, "why are monkeys still around?" is adequately explained under evolutionary theory. The answer is: monkeys, are, like us, an end-point of their own evolutionary development, although they and humans have a common ancestor that was neither human nor monkey.

I agree, it's not a very good argument for us creationists to use. Of course evolutionists use terrible arguements as well at times. Such as "human eyes are inferior to those of an octopus". The obvious problem with an argument like that is the the octopus lives in the water and humans don't so the eyes need to be designed differently by God.

[Project 86]

Or are you implying that discrediting evolution without scripture is a bad idea? I know a great number of researchers who, just on the mention of the Bible, they will slam shut the door of reasonable discourse based on their preconceptions or malconclusions the Bible is not a reliable source of information. I prefer to open doors slowly rather than pounding through;

It's rather easy to disprove evolution using scripture. Watching an evolutionist try to prove evolution using scripture is certainly an interesting ordeal though.

(Genesis 1:21) So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Obviously by reading this verse and many others in Genesis 1 you can see one kind of animal did not evolve from another kind. This verse really flies in the face of the evolutionists because they believe water creatures turned into land creatures who turned into bird creatures. Evolution idea flies in the face (no pun intended) of what God has told us.

Also the order of creation goes against the evolution idea so you can point to that (ex. sun created after the earth). You can also point to scripture that shows death and suffering was a result of sin, not a process put in place at the start to power evolution so that man could finally come about. There is plenty more but that should be enough for now.

[Soldat_fur_Christ]

Ok, Princeton Guy,

If evolution in the sense of macroevolution is possible... let's look at it like this (using evolution's arguments) and let us reason it through...

I've been through Biology, and know a lot about it...

Ok, 13.7 Billion years ago, we have the Big Bang initiated by God. Alright, the universe starts, and everything's a swerling mass... planets and the different suns don't exist yet, because matter just came into being.

They slowly progress for millions of years coming together, and earth is eventually created, along with the other planets and the thousands of stars/suns.

Alright, lets stop here, and reason. In Genesis, isn't it more logical for God to have created everything in an instant, instead of starting it as a process to take billions of years to form? Why would God want to make it so everything slowly comes around?

Then 4.5 Billion years ago... God puts DNA, and other proteins on the earth, in ooze, or whatever there was. Over more millions/billions of years, we're suppose to think that they start coming together to form things, and animals begin to form... But they have to go through natural selection, and as a result, millions of creatures die as a result, for one to come through, and keep evolving. Not to mention things like limbs, and eyes have to evolve correctly to what we have now?

Now doesn't Genesis make more sense?

Then we come about to the ape creatures that Humans "evolved" from, going against what God told Moses to write in Genesis about Adam and Eve, we evolved from a common ancestor, that still magically has to evolve correctly in order to survive.

It isn't Logical!!! Macro-Evolution is bogus! It's more sensible for Genesis to be true, then evolution being real, in the sense of macroevolution.

[Joykins]

It's rather easy to disprove evolution using scripture. Watching an evolutionist try to prove evolution using scripture is certainly an interesting ordeal though.

I am unsure what the purpose would be in doing either.

[Joykins]

Alright, lets stop here, and reason. In Genesis, isn't it more logical for God to have created everything in an instant, instead of starting it as a process to take billions of years to form? Why would God want to make it so everything slowly comes around?

Time is nothing to God. As the Bible says, a thousand years is like a day to God. God created time and thus is not limited to its constrictions, nor can we assume that he experiences it the same way we do. We cannot guess at what God's motivations are based on what makes sense to us in terms of time.

Then 4.5 Billion years ago... God puts DNA, and other proteins on the earth, in ooze, or whatever there was. Over more millions/billions of years, we're suppose to think that they start coming together to form things, and animals begin to form... But they have to go through natural selection, and as a result, millions of creatures die as a result, for one to come through, and keep evolving. Not to mention things like limbs, and eyes have to evolve correctly to what we have now?

Now doesn't Genesis make more sense?

Then we come about to the ape creatures that Humans "evolved" from, going against what God told Moses to write in Genesis about Adam and Eve, we evolved from a common ancestor, that still magically has to evolve correctly in order to survive.

It isn't Logical!!! Macro-Evolution is bogus! It's more sensible for Genesis to be true, then evolution being real, in the sense of macroevolution.

This argument boils down to "it's simpler and makes more sense to me, so it must be true."

My only quibble is that certain (usually called "literal") interpretations of Genesis conflict with what we currently understand of the physical evidence of origins. So either:

1. This interpretation of Genesis is wrong and our understanding of the evidence is right.

2. This interpretation of Genesis is right and our understanding of the evidence is wrong.

3. This interpretation of Genesis and our understanding of the evidence are both wrong.

[Project 86]

I am unsure what the purpose would be in doing either.

The purpose is to align our w