Evolution Theory Existed Long Before Darwin

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence to support a day in Genesis being 24 hours.

The text seems to indicate that it's not a period of time at all.

 

[HarleyER]

You're missing my point. My point is that you go too far in equating evolutionary thinking, of whatever forms, with atheism. They're not the same and one does not by any necessity follow the other.

Also, I'm not an atheist, and neither are many of the posters here. I would suggest you stop talking at us as if we're atheists. It's getting tiresome. Very tiresome. Notice, too, I don't condescend upon you if you want to tow the Literalist View. If you want to take the Genesis Creation account literally, go ahead. I'm fine with that, but stop the derogation.

Sorry to respond so late. I got called away for an emergency and was out of communication.

I don't think I'm going too far with equating evolution with atheism when 95% of evolutionists are atheists. Now, it is clear that you are among that small 5% of the sample who believe in evolution while believing in God. What I'm saying is that any stats or "science" you get from evolutionists is going to be tainted by a worldly evolutionary view and not an objective view. You will NEVER hear about Intelligent Design. Just pick up any scientific journal.

 

[HarleyER]

Of course, God could have created the world in 6 days 10,000 years ago. But so what? God could have done many things. What matters is what the evidence suggests did actually happen.

Like Jesus changing water to wine, the so called "evidence" suggest nothing. Just as you mentioned the God "could" have done so. One has to have some very hard evidence from an independent source.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think I'm going too far with equating evolution with atheism when 95% of evolutionists are atheists.

Show us that data. Checkable sources.

Darwin, for example, thought that God created the first living things. But we'll be waiting to see your evidence that 95% of us are atheists. I'll be asking again, if you forget.

What I'm saying is that any stats or "science" you get from evolutionists is going to be tainted by a worldly evolutionary view and not an objective view.

Perhaps you don't know how science works. It depends on evidence that is repeatable, and verifiable.

You will NEVER hear about Intelligent Design.

Nonsence. Michael Behe, for example, is an evolutionist and and advocate of "intelligent design." Michael Denton is a fellow of the Discovery Institute and acknowledges the fact of evolution. How could you not know these things?

Don't forget to show us that data proving that 95% of us are atheists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry to respond so late. I got called away for an emergency and was out of communication.

No problem. I know people have lives to live.

I don't think I'm going too far with equating evolution with atheism when 95% of evolutionists are atheists. Now, it is clear that you are among that small 5% of the sample who believe in evolution while believing in God. What I'm saying is that any stats or "science" you get from evolutionists is going to be tainted by a worldly evolutionary view and not an objective view. You will NEVER hear about Intelligent Design. Just pick up any scientific journal.

And what is an "objective" view in your understanding of the Nature of Science, Harley? I'm just wondering because I think that true and full objectivity is hard to come by where historical appraisal is involved in the process of doing science. This perspective about evolution being primarily a 'historical' concept contributes to the way I am able to hold both mainstream science and the Christian faith simultaneously. Both are historically mediated conceptually. So, when I refer to what I've learned from evolutionists either Christian or atheist, I tend not to get very disconcerted about it in relation to my faith in Christ. And as far as I know, the evolutionary Christian scientists that I read/study use the same measures and similar praxis that their irreligious counterparts do.

Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts and studies done by some Christian advocates of Intelligent Design, and I don't discount everything they say. It's just that there is a lot of philosophy that is tied up within the doing of science and, presently I don't find I.D. arguments overly compelling. At least not just yet. But who knows? Maybe someday, some bit of evidence for design will be brought forth that impels me to 'see' what I haven't noticed before. This is why I remain open to all philosophical considerations as they are plied to the protocols of science, and unlike the materialist perspective of Philosophical Naturalism, there really isn't much of anything in Methodological Naturalism, comparatively, that requires I ignore what proponents of I.D. might bring to the table of discovery and discussion.

 

[HarleyER]

No problem. I know people have lives to live.


And what is an "objective" view in your understanding of the Nature of Science, Harley? I'm just wondering because I think that true and full objectivity is hard to come by where historical appraisal is involved in the process of doing science. This perspective about evolution being primarily a 'historical' concept contributes to the way I am able to hold both mainstream science and the Christian faith simultaneously. Both are historically mediated conceptually. So, when I refer to what I've learned from evolutionists either Christian or atheist, I tend not to get very disconcerted about it in relation to my faith in Christ. And as far as I know, the evolutionary Christian scientists that I read/study use the same measures and similar praxis that their irreligious counterparts do.

Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts and studies done by some Christian advocates of Intelligent Design, and I don't discount everything they say. It's just that there is a lot of philosophy that is tied up within the doing of science and, presently I don't find I.D. arguments overly compelling. At least not just yet. But who knows? Maybe someday, some bit of evidence for design will be brought forth that impels me to 'see' what I haven't noticed before. This is why I remain open to all philosophical considerations as they are plied to the protocols of science, and unlike the materialist perspective of Philosophical Naturalism, there really isn't much of anything in Methodological Naturalism, comparatively, that requires I ignore what proponents of I.D. might bring to the table of discovery and discussion.

At one time, up until very recent (late 1600+), scientists conformed their understanding of the universe around them to their understanding of the nature of God. Great discoveries happened primarily in the western Christian world. Then, slowly, the "Age of Reason" began in which scientists started to conform the Bible to their understanding of the world. A dramatic, and dangerous, shift away from God to human reason.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At one time, up until very recent (late 1600+), scientists conformed their understanding of the universe around them to their understanding of the nature of God. Great discoveries happened primarily in the western Christian world. Then, slowly, the "Age of Reason" began in which scientists started to conform the Bible to their understanding of the world. A dramatic, and dangerous, shift away from God to human reason.

That's not exactly how things have transpired historically among scientists or theologians. There have been a lot of messy philosophical surmising over the many centuries, all mixed in with both Christian Theology, even before modern science. There has been more than one or two paradigm shifts over the millennia. You make it sound like modern scientists over the past 500 years have all been atheists and have purposefully lied in order to cheat folks out of the Christian faith. And I think that sort of thesis doesn't really hold up. It's only a half-truth.

The upshot is that everyone, Christian Theologians and various scientists, whether Christian or atheistic, have averred that they should use their God-given minds in order to make sense out of the world. Even those Christians who ambiguate by saying we can "rely on God and not on human reason" use reason in order to create and imply a false disjunction between God and Reason.

Besides, no one should be mindlessly reading the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

And as far as I know, the evolutionary Christian scientists that I read/study use the same measures and similar praxis that their irreligious counterparts do.

Right. It's not like we're competing factions in academia. They all play by the same rules.

Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts and studies done by some Christian advocates of Intelligent Design, and I don't discount everything they say.

Have you read "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton? His notion that "the designer" "front-loaded" the universe to produce living things (and ultimately us) sounds like a reasonable one to me.

He makes it clear that a rational understanding of teleology via a designer would rule out YE creationism as a possibility. I disagree with Denton on a number of things, but on this point, I think he has it right.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right. It's not like we're competing factions in academia. They all play by the same rules.

Yep.

Have you read "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton? His notion that "the designer" "front-loaded" the universe to produce living things (and ultimately us) sounds like a reasonable one to me.

No, but I think I remember going through one of his other books from twenty years ago about the same time I was reading some Kenneth Miller among a number of others.

He makes it clear that a rational understanding of teleology via a designer would rule out YE creationism as a possibility. I disagree with Denton on a number of things, but on this point, I think he has it right.

Oh. Well, when I was referring to I.D.,I wasn't intending to also refer to YEC. These are two completely different philosophical and interpretive avenues. So, for me YEC is ruled out BEFORE I.D. comes along. But whatever the case, I'm neither presently YEC or I.D., so I would agree somewhat with Denton.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, but I think I remember going through one of his other books from twenty years ago about the same time I was reading some Kenneth Miller among a number of others.

I've had the opportunity to listen to Miller and meet him. He's a very pleasant person, with a good sense of humor.

 

[expos4ever]

Like Jesus changing water to wine, the so called "evidence" suggest nothing. Just as you mentioned the God "could" have done so. One has to have some very hard evidence from an independent source.

This is not a fair analogy. The event where Jesus changes water to wine has no evidence other than the biblical account. More specifically, there is no evidence that this event did not occur.

By contrast, there is oodles of evidence that evolution took place.

It certainly seems you are trying to suggest that if I deny young Earth creationism, I have to deny the water to wine miracle. But that is not the case at all. Whereas there is plenty of evidence to reject young Earth creationism, there is no particular evidence to reject the water into wine miracle.

 

[HarleyER]

That's not exactly how things have transpired historically among scientists or theologians. There have been a lot of messy philosophical surmising over the many centuries, all mixed in with both Christian Theology, even before modern science. There has been more than one or two paradigm shifts over the millennia. You make it sound like modern scientists over the past 500 years have all been atheists and have purposefully lied in order to cheat folks out of the Christian faith. And I think that sort of thesis doesn't really hold up. It's only a half-truth.

The upshot is that everyone, Christian Theologians and various scientists, whether Christian or atheistic, have averred that they should use their God-given minds in order to make sense out of the world. Even those Christians who ambiguate by saying we can "rely on God and not on human reason" use reason in order to create and imply a false disjunction between God and Reason.

Besides, no one should be mindlessly reading the Bible.

If I made it sound like every scientist in the last 500 years has been atheists, then I'm sorry for the confusion. My emphasis is on the here and now.

What I see today is a slow erosion and drift away from orthodox biblical belief among Christians who buy into what the world is peddling. It is certainly prevalent in today's church (in every church/Church). It doesn't mean one has to disregard or dismiss science. I'm not some wacky crazy person that believes every time you cut your finger let's send it to the prayer chain for healing rather than pulling out the Neosporin and bandaids.

Science and scripture should be compatible. But that isn’t what I’m hearing-especially with evolution. Where one cannot reconcile the two, scripture should always trump. Not because of blind faith, but in every case, there is simply not enough solid, definitive information. Many of the things in scripture that was pooh-pooh one hundred years ago have been found to be true. And, many of the things we don't understand now, eventually work themselves out as we study and understand the scriptures. This I've learned from experience.

Christians should tread very carefully in making claims that runs counter to sound biblical teaching.

Matthew 5:19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[HarleyER]

This is not a fair analogy. The event where Jesus changes water to wine has no evidence other than the biblical account. More specifically, there is no evidence that this event did not occur.

By contrast, there is oodles of evidence that evolution took place.

It certainly seems you are trying to suggest that if I deny young Earth creationism, I have to deny the water to wine miracle. But that is not the case at all. Whereas there is plenty of evidence to reject young Earth creationism, there is no particular evidence to reject the water into wine miracle.

"The event where Jesus changes water to wine has no evidence other than the biblical account. More specifically, there is no evidence that this event did not occur."

Well that explains everything. If you don't believe in the scripture, then what exactly are you basing your faith on; science?

"It certainly seems you are trying to suggest that if I deny young Earth creationism, I have to deny the water to wine miracle."

No, what I'm suggesting is that you consider that, perhaps, what you are seeing around you is not as it appears despite what you have been told by unbelieving scientists. The water to wine miracle is only a small demostration and an illustration of the deception we experience every day. We are in the Matrix with spiritual warfare going on around us, yet we don't realize it because it isn't tangible. Don't rely upon what you might think you know. Instead rely upon what is told to us in scripture.

2 Kings 6:17 Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the Lord opened the servant’s eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

2 Corinthians 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight—

 

[The Barbarian]

If I made it sound like every scientist in the last 500 years has been atheists, then I'm sorry for the confusion. My emphasis is on the here and now.

What I see today is a slow erosion and drift away from orthodox biblical belief among Christians who buy into what the world is peddling. It is certainly prevalent in today's church (in every church/Church).

Orthodox Christianity takes no stand on the evolution/special creation issue. And God doesn't care if you approve of evolution or not. Only if you make an idol of your new beliefs, will it be a problem for you. Christians should tread very carefully in making claims that runs counter to sound biblical teaching.

 

[HarleyER]

Orthodox Christianity takes no stand on the evolution/special creation issue. And God doesn't care if you approve of evolution or not. Only if you make an idol of your new beliefs, will it be a problem for you. Christians should tread very carefully in making claims that runs counter to sound biblical teaching.

It's rather laughable for a Catholic, with their beads, prayers to Mary/saints, relics, etc., to tell a Protestant about the "idol of evolution".

BTW-I just checked and the Catholic Church takes no official position on evolution. So you're safe to believe in creation. Come on over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I made it sound like every scientist in the last 500 years has been atheists, then I'm sorry for the confusion. My emphasis is on the here and now.

What I see today is a slow erosion and drift away from orthodox biblical belief among Christians who buy into what the world is peddling. It is certainly prevalent in today's church (in every church/Church). It doesn't mean one has to disregard or dismiss science. I'm not some wacky crazy person that believes every time you cut your finger let's send it to the prayer chain for healing rather than pulling out the Neosporin and bandaids.

I know you're not a wacky, crazy person, although you may perhaps be overcompensating a bit to make up for what you feel is lost time.

As for me, you've reached me about 40 years too late. I'm thoroughly indoctrinated by modern science. I'm also an existentialist, a critical realist and an evidentialist, and rather than trying to convince me of some things about science that I probably know more about than you presently realize I do, you'd be better off saving your breath on evangelism or teaching and just saying a prayer of thanks to the Lord that I'm Christian at all. I'm just trying to save you some time. Besides, I don't think science is beholden to atheistic concepts. And you can wonder how I might know that ...

Science and scripture should be compatible. But that isn’t what I’m hearing-especially with evolution. Where one cannot reconcile the two, scripture should always trump. Not because of blind faith, but in every case, there is simply not enough solid, definitive information. Many of the things in scripture that was pooh-pooh one hundred years ago have been found to be true. And, many of the things we don't understand now, eventually work themselves out as we study and understand the scriptures. This I've learned from experience.

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think science and scripture have to be compatible in order for a person to have faith in Jesus Christ. This is a false dilemma, a canard that both atheists (mainly disgruntled ex-christians) and some Christians have ingratiated themselves to. I don't suspect that as the Falling Away commences further on in time that this outcome will be reversed. Another reason not to get too worried about the fact that folks are letting go of the Bible, in more ways than one and not just on the level of 'orthodoxy.'

So, save some time, Sister. You'll thank me later.

Christians should tread very carefully in making claims that runs counter to sound biblical teaching.

Matthew 5:19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Yes, Christians should tread very carefully when handling Scripture. That's one reason I've been studying Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis for a while now and have about 3 dozen books on these topics from several different denominational views. But again, thanks for your concern. I've already heeded that additional verse from James regarding "teaching" for a long time.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's rather laughable for a Catholic, with their beads, prayers to Mary/saints, relics, etc., to tell a Protestant about the "idol of evolution".

I notice that Martin Luther said that Mary was due veneration as the Mother of God. And you should know that The Church says that images and relics have no power whatever. Your idolization of YE doctrines is quite another issue. Instead of hating other Christians, you should just find a way to accept God's word as He has given it to you.