Baptist theistic evolutionists?

[Northern Christian]

I've never met a fellow Baptist who is a theistic evolutionist. Is anyone here one? This isn't an attack- I'm just wondering. :)

[ZeroTX]

I was raised Baptist, and I believe there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the creation story as described in Scriptures...

If that's Theistic Evolutionism... then I guess I am that. Hehe.

In other words, "Old Earth" Creationist.... whatever. I think a) yes, God created us and b) evolution is the process... I'm not sure what that makes me...

But you do have to understand that 2000-3000 years ago, people didn't even know the earth was round, so it wouldn't have made sense for God to explain the process in any more complicated terms than he did in Genesis. It's completely true... just simplified.

-Michael

[bleechers]

There are several serious theological (non-biblical) problems with "theistic evolution."

1 - It teaches that there was death before (Adam) sin.
2 - Blood was shed before Eden.
3 - "Survival of the Fittest" is somehow God's will.
4 - Man today (by evolution standards) is more evolved than Christ (even if only by 2K years).
5 - There was no need for Christ to "conquer death" for death was God's way of improving life.

The Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere and that death was the result of sin. The Bible also clearly teaches that men lived for hundreds of years until the Flood. If this is not true, then the Bible contains error, Jesus was ignorant and the NT is based on fables. None of which is true and none of which is compatible with true Christianity.

Jesus believed in Adam, Noah and Abel. So do I.

Paul makes his gospel argument based on the Adamic sin that led to death. In evolution, death is a good thing. Would God create a system whereby the stronger killing the weaker was His will? I think not.

[ZeroTX]

Fables?...

Do you call the Parables told by Jesus Christ Fables?.... Jesus Christ is God embodied... Why do people find it so difficult to fathom the possibility that God told in Parables -- in such a way that people could understand.....

It is ridiculous for us to believe that we really understand, at all. What is written in the Bible is completely true... But it's not always literally true. I'm sure I'd be rebuked for saying that in most Baptist churches.... It's a sentiment I felt, on my own, with no outside influence at the age of 15-ish... and I'm the son of a Baptist pastor.

Each of us reads the Word of God and has access to receive the Word through the Holy Spirit. It is outside anyone's authority, except God's, to say what we do or don't get out of it.

-Michael

[FredSmith]

bump

[aReformedPatriot]

Ew..

Theisitic Evolution attacks the historicity of the man we call Adam, who Paul compares with the historicity of Jesus in Romans 5:12-21 when he teaches on the fall and the imputation of both sin and Christ's righteousness. If you remove one pillar then the historical pillar of Christ likewise crumbles under the weight of evolution. It has to as its just the logical outcome of this.

Likewise if the historicity of Adam and Eve are attacked then we really have no idea why we are sinners. We just are and if this is the case and one wishes to call the Genesis narrative a metaphor, it still doesn't have any meaning because you still cannot show how man fell or sin entered the world. It undermines the whole doctrine of redemption.

[arunma]

As far as old threads go, I guess this is the winner. Now that people will be reading the old posts, let me make a couple of corrections.

In other words, "Old Earth" Creationist.... whatever. I think a) yes, God created us and b) evolution is the process... I'm not sure what that makes me...

Actually, old earth creationism and theistic evolution aren't the same thing. Old earth creationism rejects any form of human evolution, and asserts the historicity of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. It also teaches that the days of creation are not literal 24-hour days, and that the earth is 4.1 billion years old. Old earth creationists generally also have no qualms with the big bang theory, and in fact support it with the Psalmist's teaching that God "stretches out" the heavens.

I happen to believe in old earth creationism. But these days I tend to be rather apathetic to creation/evolution debates. As far as theology goes, there are many bigger fish to fry.

2 - Blood was shed before Eden.

I have no problem with young earth creationism, but I've never understood why young earth creationists object to the idea of animal death before the fall. This suggests that the death of animals is "evil" in some sense. This doctrine seems to find its origins in the false Eastern and European religions rather than from the Scriptures. Not that I'm trying to argue based upon guilt by association, but I find that Hindus and people who practice European paganism tend to worship nature, and believe that the killing of animals is contrary to divine will. Yet it was God who killed the first two animals after the fall, and it was God who instituted animal sacrifice through the Law of Moses. And based on the Apostle Paul's teaching on meat in Romans 14, it would also appear that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the death of animals by the hand of man for worthy purposes (can you believe this is coming from the mouth of a vegetarian?).

And if that is so, then it certainly isn't wrong for animals to kill other animals. This is how God created the animals. Lions have sharp teeth so that they can kill their prey. Peppered moths have their camouflage so that they can avoid their predators. This is how the animal kingdoms are supposed to be, and I see no indication either in scientific observations or in the Bible that animals were ever intended to live differently. So the idea of animal death before the fall should not be seen as a theological problem.

[mesue]

bump
After 2 years? Why?

[AV1611VET]

I'm a YEC that believes that God created this universe in 6 solar days --- with age embedded in it.

[ZiSunka]

I was listening to Ken Hamm's two-minute program on the radio a couple weeks ago and realized he is a believer in theistic evolution, which is weird because I could swear that years ago he was a creationist.

He said that Noah didn't have to take two of every animal on board the ark, all he had to take is two of every KIND of animal, you know, two pachyderms, two wild canines, two great cats, and so on, and that after the ark landed, God caused all the different modern species to develop from the two ancestors on the ark.

Like from the two great cats, all the different kinds of great cats (mountain lions, African lions, pumas, tigers, panthers, ocelots, cheetahs, and so on) and even our domesticated house cats, descended under God's direction.

Likewise the wild canines. From the two ancestors on Noah's ark, we got wolves, coyotes, hyenas, African wild dogs, dingos, and so on, which all developed AFTER the ark, under God's direction

That is theistic evolution, isn't it?

[ZiSunka]

I'm a YEC that believes that God created this universe in 6 solar days --- with age embedded in it.

Age imbedded in it? Are you saying that God created things older than they were?

[AV1611VET]

Age imbedded in it? Are you saying that God created things older than they were?
Hi there, Lambslove!

Yes, indeed. Not to fool us, mind you; but because a young earth wouldn't be able to sustain life.

Think about it: when you see pics of the Garden of Eden, the vegetation is fully-grown. So are Adam and Eve.

God, in His infinite wisdom, knew we couldn't live on a planet without certain scientific principles in full operation.

Is He smart or what? :)

[AV1611VET]

That is theistic evolution, isn't it?
Ken Hamm explains this as genetic entropy. In other words, the gene pool is subject to decay, therefore coyotes give way to domestic dogs that give way to wolves --- same with the felines --- pachyderms, etc.

I too subscribe to that belief.

It certainly explains why Dobermans (Dobermen?), Spaniels, Retrievers, etc. all didn't have to get on the Ark, along with Leopards, Tigers, Lions, Panthers, etc.; and makes for a lot less crowded Ark.

[ZiSunka]

It certainly explains why Dobermans (Dobermen?), Spaniels, Retrievers, etc. all didn't have to get on the Ark, along with Leopards, Tigers, Lions, Panthers, etc.; and makes for a lot less crowded Ark.

Except that spaniels, retrievers etc, are all BREEDS of the same species, canis domestica, the domesticated dog, not separate SPECIES, and all of them have modern origins, they were bred from common dogs with desired phenotypes to get the true-breeding breeds that we have today. New breeds of dogs are still being developed today. Here is a list of some of the new breeds: http://www.akc.org/breeds/fss_breeds.cfm

But they aren't a new species, just new combinations of existing dog genes.

By the way, you said "all didn't have to get on the Ark, along with Leopards, Tigers, Lions, Panthers, etc", but Hamm's ideology says that all those species of cats evolved from the single pair of great cats that Noah took on the ark. So there was only one pair of great cats, not four or more pairs.

[AV1611VET]

By the way, you said "all didn't have to get on the Ark, along with Leopards, Tigers, Lions, Panthers, etc", but Hamm's ideology says that all those species of cats evolved from the single pair of great cats that Noah took on the ark. So there was only one pair of great cats, not four or more pairs.
Sorry for the confusion. I meant all didn't have to get on the Ark, and neither did Leopards, Tigers, Lions, Panthers, etc.

The point is that only pairs of Canids (dogs), pairs of Felids (cats), pairs of Ovids (sheep), pairs of Bovids (cattle), pairs of Ursids (bears), pairs of Equids (horses), etc. boarded --- not each specific species.

I interpret the word "kind" as the word "genera" today.

Have you ever been to a Ken Hamm seminar? He had a replica of Noah's Ark with a replica of a train car (box car) next to it, built to scale --- it really put the size of the Ark in perspective!

[ZiSunka]

I interpret the word "kind" as the word "genera" today.


Interesting, because the word "kind" has always meant species before.

Sure works a lot more conveniently if it means genera, or even more conveniently if it means "family" or even "order" and best of all would be "kingdom."

My point is, how do you know when to stop enlarging the category so that all the "kinds" of animals fit on the ark? The Bible doesn't really give a clue...so any point you name above species is really a guess for the sake of making the ark seem plausible and scientific, but it still relies on evolution to make it work.

It's perplexing and even exasperating for Hamm to spend 20 years claiming that creationism is the only right way, and now his change to theistic evolution does nothing but crush his credibility.

[DarkWinter]

This just frosts me. i'm sorry but God created the world to be perfect, no death; until Adam and Eve sinned. The fact that God created the animals to kill, would be contrary to what the Bible says about the Garden of Eden. The world was only different after the fall. God created pestilence, things that made life hard for man. in the Garden of Eden, the animals would not have to kill for food, they would have everything that they would need to eat, in the garden. So outside of the Garden, they would have to fend for themselves.
Also the idea that animals evolved into what we have today is just as wrong as evolution. If household cats evolved from Leopards, and such, then why do we still have Leopards? That's just like man evolved from apes, but why do we still have apes? God created everything as is. He would not need to have them evolve, the only thing that he mentions in the Bible as evolving, was the serpent, which devolved, so to speak, as punishment. We've had the same animals from the beginning. Except those who have been extinct for a while. Dinosaurs may have not adjusted to the climate, or lost their primary food source. Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. But we don't have them today. So would that not prove that God created everything right as he planned.

[DarkWinter]

The ark is plausible and the ark has been found. Frozen in the mountains some of it has preserved. So that God would have to use evolution to do His work is insane. God can do anything and yet you seem to think that He can't. You can't take part of the Bible and believe it and take another part and say you don't believe that. Either the Bible is all true or it is all lies. That's the only definition.

[arunma]

This just frosts me. i'm sorry but God created the world to be perfect, no death; until Adam and Eve sinned. The fact that God created the animals to kill, would be contrary to what the Bible says about the Garden of Eden. The world was only different after the fall. God created pestilence, things that made life hard for man. in the Garden of Eden, the animals would not have to kill for food, they would have everything that they would need to eat, in the garden.

Where does the Bible say that there was no animal death before the fall? Keep in mind that the Garden of Eden wasn't the only place in the world that sustained animal life. I can't find any Biblical support for the idea that animal death is a result of the fall. It seems to me that God created the animals in order to eat one another, and there is nothing evil about this.

I'm not trying to argue with you so much as I am trying to understand this position. Christ said,
Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. (St. Matthew 6:26)
So then, the activity of birds (and most likely all animals) is God's way of providing for them. Why would animal death then be a result of the fall?

Interesting, because the word "kind" has always meant species before.

Sure works a lot more conveniently if it means genera, or even more conveniently if it means "family" or even "order" and best of all would be "kingdom."

The division of animals into taxonomic categories is a human invention. If we were to apply this to non-animal objects, a tree and a house could be grouped in the same kingdom, for the simple reason that they are both made out of wood. This is not to say that taxonomy is not a valuable science. But it is a human construct, and does not logically follow from natural observations.

That, and the fact that the Biblical authors did not know about taxonomy, lead me to believe that Moses had no conception of a "species" when he wrote the Law. It seems to me that because God's salvation through Noah's Ark was a miraculous event, explaining it with science is a fruitless endeavor. Old earth creationists believe that the Ark carried only the animal species from the Middle East, and young earth creationists believe that the Ark contained all animal life on the planet. Either way, this event would require the miracle of God. People are trying to use science to explain God, and to my knowledge, that never works.

[rainbowpromise]

Romans 5:12 - 21

Sin entered the world through one man. Death entered through sin.
It also says that sin reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses.
I interpret it to mean that sin started at the time Adam and continued to the time of the law. That does not mean that sin ended, obviously.

[Andyman_1970]

One thing to keep in mind pre Noah was that there were no meat eaters on earth.......all animals and humans were vegetarians (Genesis 9).

Also as far as sin entering the world and how it affects us today, sin is rebellion against God's law, not some inherited evil.

[JPPT1974]

One thing to keep in mind pre Noah was that there were no meat eaters on earth.......all animals and humans were vegetarians (Genesis 9).

Also as far as sin entering the world and how it affects us today, sin is rebellion against God's law, not some inherited evil.

Sin is rebelling against God
And that God isn't please when we do that
Small or big sin!

[arunma]

Romans 5:12 - 21

Sin entered the world through one man. Death entered through sin.
It also says that sin reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses.
I interpret it to mean that sin started at the time Adam and continued to the time of the law. That does not mean that sin ended, obviously.

This is true, but I've always interpreted death to mean spiritual death. After all, God promised that Adam would die the same day that he ate the fruit, and he did not die physically until some 900 years later. Unless God lied or changed his mind, we are forced to conclude that by death, both the Prophet Moses and Apostle Paul refer to a spiritual death.

Remember also that Christ promises eternal life to those who believe in him. He promises that his disciples will never die, and yet it is easy to show that Christians die like everyone else. Thus it is clear that when Christ (and his Apostles) talks about life and death, it is spiritual life and death. So the idea I am proposing is not very far-fetched. What do you think?

One thing to keep in mind pre Noah was that there were no meat eaters on earth.......all animals and humans were vegetarians (Genesis 9).


I'm still not convinced of that. But even if we stipulate that it is true, this does not suggest that animal death did not exist before Noah or even the fall of man. I do not think the Bible implies anywhere that animals did not kill one another and die naturally before the fall of man.

[steen]

I have been told that this is where the Society of friends belong, so I will give my input.

(1) Noah's Ark has not been found. Wyatt is basically a scam artist.

(2) The numbers provided in the Bible allows not for species, nor for genera. It has to be much more general than that.

(3) Reading Genesis 1 as anything other than an allegory on why God matters gives the problem of directly being contradicted by solid, unassailable evidence, showing Christians essentially to be ignorant baffoons (Yes, I know that creationists are making all sorts of claims about science. the claims are all specious, they are all in error and at best shows the claimers to be ignorant of science), and will end up in pure sophistry and a God-of-the-Gap ideology. Absolutist ad hominems against those who are not strict literalists won't win anybody any friends.

If posters run into problems arguing about science with those who know science, I would recommend reading up on the Scientific Method.

(4) Scientific data doesn't say anything about God one way or the other. Arguing that Evolution/Science somehow is detracting from God is (a) incorrect from the way science works, and (b) is again God-of-the-gap, causing an ever-shrinking God. There is no conflict between Faith in God and acceptance of scientific evidence.

(5) Denying Scientific proof is the same as saying that God deliberately lied to us, that God deliberately set up everything in nature to have the appearance of age when it didn't. That's no different than claiming that God created everything last Tuesday with false, "aged" memories etc.

[arunma]

I have been told that this is where the Society of friends belong, so I will give my input.

(1) Noah's Ark has not been found. Wyatt is basically a scam artist.

(2) The numbers provided in the Bible allows not for species, nor for genera. It has to be much more general than that.

(3) Reading Genesis 1 as anything other than an allegory on why God matters gives the problem of directly being contradicted by solid, unassailable evidence, showing Christians essentially to be ignorant baffoons (Yes, I know that creationists are making all sorts of claims about science. the claims are all specious, they are all in error and at best shows the claimers to be ignorant of science), and will end up in pure sophistry and a God-of-the-Gap ideology. Absolutist ad hominems against those who are not strict literalists won't win anybody any friends.

If posters run into problems arguing about science with those who know science, I would recommend reading up on the Scientific Method.

(4) Scientific data doesn't say anything about God one way or the other. Arguing that Evolution/Science somehow is detracting from God is (a) incorrect from the way science works, and (b) is again God-of-the-gap, causing an ever-shrinking God. There is no conflict between Faith in God and acceptance of scientific evidence.

(5) Denying Scientific proof is the same as saying that God deliberately lied to us, that God deliberately set up everything in nature to have the appearance of age when it didn't. That's no different than claiming that God created everything last Tuesday with false, "aged" memories etc.

You bring up a couple of good points. Being a scientist myself, I know that most of creation "science" is not really science at all. That said, I happen to hold to the orthodox doctrine of the inerrency of the Scriptures. As such, I take the position that the creation account of Moses is literal truth, and I do not bother to justify it scientifically. And to be honest, it doesn't keep me up at night. I often read theology in my spare time, and I've encountered plenty of questions that deserve more time than trying to determine how the literality of Adam and Eve can be reconciled with the fact that mitochondrial DNA doesn't trace back to a single woman.

I would, however, pose a question to you. By what standard do you judge what parts of the Bible to take literally, and what to take figratively? For example, if scientists were to one day suggest that Jesus was never resurrected by God, would you take this account to be figurative as well? Obviously I chose that example because the literal resurrection of Christ is an orthodox doctrine of Christianity. But it does raise the issue of whether or not we are allowed to set our own standards of Biblical literalism.

[Andyman_1970]

Which raises the question is all the Bible to be taken literally?

[arunma]

Which raises the question is all the Bible to be taken literally?

I'd say yes, but with a few qualifiers. Most importantly, what do we mean by "taking the Bible literally." My pastor gives the example of the statement "pick your mother up from the town square." In order to locate your mother, you need not search for a structure in the shape of a perfect square. Perhaps the square could even be shaped like a circle. And when you found it, you would not go to your mother and lift her off the ground. So we can see that taking a statement literally does not mean that every word in the statement must be literally true. The same applies to the Bible.

[Andyman_1970]

I'd say yes, but with a few qualifiers. Most importantly, what do we mean by "taking the Bible literally." My pastor gives the example of the statement "pick your mother up from the town square." In order to locate your mother, you need not search for a structure in the shape of a perfect square. Perhaps the square could even be shaped like a circle. And when you found it, you would not go to your mother and lift her off the ground.

With all due respect to your wonderful pastor (which he is BTW) that analogy is lacking with respect to evaluating how one takes or doesn’t take a passage of the Bible literally. We live in a culture that for the most part when using the statement (for example) of “town square” most people in the US in 2006 are familiar with this term. His example is IMO too culturally “close” to the time period of the people he is addressing to be accurate with respect to the situation we have with the Scriptures (please forgive my pickiness…….LOL).

The Text we have is 2000-3000 years old and is full of the writings of people from a very different time period and culture than our own……….so their “town square” could be much different to our “town square”……….LOL

So we can see that taking a statement literally does not mean that every word in the statement must be literally true. The same applies to the Bible.

So which statements in the Bible are to be taken literally? Is the assembly of those who are identified as being in the Messiah literally turn into various body parts……….or was Paul being figurative there? Was Jesus a literal vegetative growth out of a tree stump? How come none of the cosmic events of Isaiah 13 literally happened? Was Isaiah speaking figuratively or literally?

[Dmckay]

But you do have to understand that 2000-3000 years ago, people didn't even know the earth was round, so it wouldn't have made sense for God to explain the process in any more complicated terms than he did in Genesis. It's completely true... just simplified.

-Michael
There is a bit of a problem to your premise stated above. Job, considered that oldest book of the Bible states in Job 26:7-10
7 "He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing.
8"He wraps up the waters in His clouds,
And the cloud does not burst under them.
9"He obscures the face of the full moon
And spreads His cloud over it.
10"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters
At the boundary of light and darkness.
A literal translation of verse 10 is " He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, until day and night come to an end." In other words, Job knew of the Earth being spherical.

Isaiah 40:21-22 also describe a spherical Earth. 21 "Do you not know? Have you not heard?
Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

While historians attribute the discernment of Pythagoras as being the first to posit that the Earth is round, but one of the proofs given that the Earth was round was He observed, as mentioned by Job that the horizon when looking at the ocean or sea is observably round. Even though many try to excuse the Passage in Job as just talking about a disk-like flat Earth, this can't be the case for he used almost the same reasoning (as shown by his wording) as did Pythagoras.

[steen]

....I would, however, pose a question to you. By what standard do you judge what parts of the Bible to take literally, and what to take figratively?Oh, good question. The gut level response is "depending on what science has shown." But that would be a reverse "God-of-the-Gaps" argument and thus not really valid. What it really comes down to with me is that it is not even a question I contemplate because it doesn't matter to me. It is the message that matters, not the events. To me, the Bible is about WHY God matter and the "why" of God's message to me. Every single word of the Bible could be scientifically be proven false and it wouldn't matter one bit to me, my Faith in God would be unchanged. At the same time, I fully accept the validity of the Scientific Method. So it really is not a God-of-the Gaps view, but more of a parallel view. The Bible and Science doesn't overlap and compete in my view. The rather are complementing each other. It is like sight and smell. These two senses are very different, and yet together, they give you an even richer impression of the world.

For example, if scientists were to one day suggest that Jesus was never resurrected by God, would you take this account to be figurative as well? I would say that in the Bible, Jesus was resurrected, and in science, Jesus was not (but it would need more than science "suggesting" this, and I am not sure how science would do this, as it is clear that science can't say anything about the supernatural.

Obviously I chose that example because the literal resurrection of Christ is an orthodox doctrine of Christianity. But it does raise the issue of whether or not we are allowed to set our own standards of Biblical literalism.Sure, I understand. But I also don't see a conflict, as I don't see Science and Religion occupying the same spheres.

[arunma]

I would say that in the Bible, Jesus was resurrected, and in science, Jesus was not (but it would need more than science "suggesting" this, and I am not sure how science would do this, as it is clear that science can't say anything about the supernatural.

Sure, I understand. But I also don't see a conflict, as I don't see Science and Religion occupying the same spheres.

In most cases I would agree, but the resurrection of Christ is a rather unique event. This is the one doctrine of the Bible which is historical rather than theological. Either Christ was raised or he wasn't. The Scriptures leave no room for us to interpret our way out of this. We cannot say that the resurrection is an allegory for God's love towards mankind. We cannot say that the resurrection teaches a symbolic message about triumph over evil.

Here we have a group of Apostles who say that a man who was killed in public was literally raised back to life, and that his body was so real that he could even eat fish with them. According to the Scriptures, it is not by allegory or symbolic message that God forgives our sins, but by the resurrection of Christ.

The "problem" here is that whereas the rest of Biblical teaching can fall into the realm of philosophy, the resurrection overlaps with science. Science deals with the real world. And the resurrection of Christ is a testable claim. It certainly is difficult to test, since the living Christ is in heaven and seated at the right hand of God. But in theory, any physical claim can be scientifically tested. So it is concievable that science could one day devise a means to test the resurrection.

Despite believing in Biblical creation, I will admit that the creation account could potentially be taken allegorically. Perhaps if Adam and Eve are not historical characters, the doctrine of original sin could be preserved by suggesting that the story of Adam is an allegory to describe the fall of man, which in reality occured by some other means. Not so with the resurrection. It either happened, or it didn't. So then, I suggest that it is impossible for the resurrection to be true Biblically, but false scientifically. Here we must require religion and science to agree.

[steen]

In most cases I would agree, but the resurrection of Christ is a rather unique event. This is the one doctrine of the Bible which is historical rather than theological. Either Christ was raised or he wasn't. And yet, science has no way of proving one way or the other. So it still is not a scientific point that can ever be made.

The Scriptures leave no room for us to interpret our way out of this. We cannot say that the resurrection is an allegory for God's love towards mankind. We cannot say that the resurrection teaches a symbolic message about triumph over evil.I am not saying that. When Science is saying that Jesus was not resurrected according to science, it is simply saying that science has no evidence. It doesn't say that this did not occur.

That is an important distinction, one that non-scientists often fail to make. So yes, per my religion and my Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus is very real. Per my science, there is no evidence for this happening, and as such, in science Jesus didn't rise (Only positive evidence is included).

Here we have a group of Apostles who say that a man who was killed in public was literally raised back to life, and that his body was so real that he could even eat fish with them. According to the Scriptures, it is not by allegory or symbolic message that God forgives our sins, but by the resurrection of Christ.Absolutely.

The "problem" here is that whereas the rest of Biblical teaching can fall into the realm of philosophy,Doesn't matter Whether the Bible is literal or not doesn't matter to science. Science is only about the evidence. If there is no scientific evidence for something, then it is not part of science. Science would never say that Jesus didn't get resurrected, because there is no evidence either way. There is no conflict between science and religion about Jesus' resurrection, and I don't see how there ever could be.

the resurrection overlaps with science. Science deals with the real world. And the resurrection of Christ is a testable claim.Actually, it is not. remember that Science is the exploration of observable of measurable events through the application of the Scientific Method. So how would you derive scientific evidence of Jesus resurrection? Or much MORE pertinent, what would be required to prove it false? remember that a hypothesis MUST be falsifiable in order to be a Scientific Hypothesis.

It certainly is difficult to test, since the living Christ is in heaven and seated at the right hand of God. But in theory, any physical claim can be scientifically tested.Not really.

So it is concievable that science could one day devise a means to test the resurrection.I don't see how. And until that date, there is no conflict.

Despite believing in Biblical creation, I will admit that the creation account could potentially be taken allegorically. Perhaps if Adam and Eve are not historical characters, the doctrine of original sin could be preserved by suggesting that the story of Adam is an allegory to describe the fall of man, which in reality occurred by some other means. Not so with the resurrection. It either happened, or it didn't.Agreed. However, that is an issue of history more than science.

So then, I suggest that it is impossible for the resurrection to be true Biblically, but false scientifically.I agree. The resurrection can not be proven false.

Here we must require religion and science to agree.Science agrees that it can not prove the resurrection of Christ to be false. It didn't happen according to science, because there is no actual supportive evidence. But that doesn't mean that Science can conclude that it didn't happen, because there is no evidence either way. So once again, we get stuck in the uniqueness of scientific vocabulary. But really, there is no conflict.

[arunma]

I am not saying that. When Science is saying that Jesus was not resurrected according to science, it is simply saying that science has no evidence. It doesn't say that this did not occur.

That is an important distinction, one that non-scientists often fail to make. So yes, per my religion and my Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus is very real. Per my science, there is no evidence for this happening, and as such, in science Jesus didn't rise (Only positive evidence is included).

I agree that it is an important distinction, one that I can appreciate as a scientist. And indeed I have made this distinction throughout our conversation, but perhaps I didn't phrase it very well. Therefore, I hope you'll give me another opportunity.

As you say, a scientific statement must be falsifiable, and that is precisely why I say "either he did rise, or he didn't." It is true that at present, the resurrection has not been scientifically proven. But I meant to say that in theory, it must be regarded as a fact that could potentially be proven true (or false). We must understand that the resurrection is not metaphysical, but that it is a genuine historical event. It's possible that our debate was in vain, because at this point I think we may be attempting to say the same thing with different words.

Earlier you criticized creationism and the movement's effort to scientifically prove that Biblical creation is literally true. I'm not going to go too close to that subject, since I think creationism causes fruitless arguments between Christian brothers. What I mean to say is that if similar efforts were employed in order to scientifically prove the truth of the resurrection, then those efforts would not be in vain, for Christianity hinges on this central belief.

Would you agree with what I've said?

[steen]

...What I mean to say is that if similar efforts were employed in order to scientifically prove the truth of the resurrection, then those efforts would not be in vain, for Christianity hinges on this central belief.

Would you agree with what I've said?Kind off. I still don't see science as proving the occurrence of historical events, even in the future, with perfect knowledge or whatnot. That is the problem I have with your attempt at merging Science with evidence of the Resurrection. I just don't see how science can prove this in any way.

But if you want to deal in pure hypotheticals, then even if science could "prove" the actual Resurrection false, it wouldn't shake my faith, as it is not based on evidence of any kind. My Faith in god is based... well on Faith (yes, circular argument, I know, but eventually, all arguments do end up with that).