How can anyone not believe in evolution?

[Gary82]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

Christians must believe that Jesus was/is God...and/or son of God...and/or son of Man, or whatever and worship God through him. That's the only stipulation.

I don't know many who take everything else in the Bible literally.

 

[goldfly]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

why couldn't a Christian say evolution was Gods plan?

after all, why would you understand Gods plan?

 

[zitothebrave]

Christians must believe that Jesus was/is God...and/or son of God...and/or son of Man, or whatever and worship God through him. That's the only stipulation.

I don't know many who take everything else in the Bible literally.

I know some who do, and they're much worse off for it.

 

[Runnin]

You can believe anything. It's amazingly easy to do.

The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist

 

[mossy]

I know some who do, and they're much worse off for it.

In what way?

What does the "THEORY" of evolution do for me except tell me I'm nothing but a mistake or a coincidence?

This is an age where men must answer only to themselves, mainly out of selfishness, an attitude precipitated by the "theory" of evolution.

I believe in micro-evolution for sure. The world has changed for sure. But after I hear things being explained in "billions and billions of years ago, I find it tiresome. The minute I hear that talk, my first response is "that's your way of saying 'I don't know and I can't explain it".

"Theory" of evolution. You have can it.

I'll stick with intelligent design/creation. If you want to believe you were once a monkey, or a shark, or a donkey, you truly have my pity.

I'm not suggesting Christians are perfect. My own behavior here at times has proven my own imperfections. I'm human, but I've also asked your forgiveness.

This man has his faults, I don't agree with all he suggests in his other presentations, but he used to be an evolutionist who turned Christian after finding way too many holes in the "theory/religion" of evolution.

A spade Unearths the Truth

 

[BedellBrave]

Can a Christain follow Jesus and God and Thier teachings yet still believe in evolution or is it contradictory?

I don't think you can. You either believe in this or that but you can't intermingle the two.

You can't be an orthodox Christian and hold to an atheistic version of evolution.

 

[BedellBrave]

Why not? Someone can't believe in the whole "creationism" BS and also believe in evolution (which is tragic, because one is backed by so much evidence and fact and the other...zilch. And people won't believe in evolution and fight it for the sole fact that they've been brainwashed and HAVE to believe creationism). But I think you can believe in god and take the bible as a guide book and not as factual stories (as it should be looked at) while also acknowledging that yes, evolution happened.

Yute given to rash overstatements and bold balderdash.

 

[BedellBrave]

The vast, vast majority of Christians do not regard the Bible as a work of literal history, at least in terms of the old testament creation myth. Likewise, the theory of evolution proper does not make any claims about the origin of creation. There does not need to be a conflict.

I'd nuance it a bit more, as would be expected; but, basically this ^^^.

 

[BedellBrave]

Christians must believe that Jesus was/is God...and/or son of God...and/or son of Man, or whatever and worship God through him. That's the only stipulation.

I don't know many who take everything else in the Bible literally.

Not quite. Basically the truths found in statements like the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, etc., have set the core doctrinal commitments of Christian orthodoxy (i.e., you profess those beliefs then you have the historical right to call yourself a Christian - if not, you don't).

Of course many Christians (like myself) believe that such a profession and acts of outward piety only say something external about whether one is a Christian and that to be one at heart means more than just assent to a list a doctrines and the performance of certain duties - it means a true trusting in Jesus as one's Lord (King) and Savior.

I describe the difference as being a Christian in name (a good thing) and a Christian in heart (and even better thing). But recognize the latter includes the former.

 

[zitothebrave]

I love when people throw theory in quotes. Like it diminishes what it is. Scientific Theory is something that has been proven, it's been repeatedly confirmed through tests and observation. Evolution exists. If you want to say God did it that's fine you can as no one knows how the whole shebang started.

As far as humans go, you're not a mistake or coincidence. Evolution doesn't say that. What evolution says is that changes occurs out of necessity. Why did humans develop stronger brains than other animals? Because it was necessary to survive and thrive.

I don't get though why you don't believe we descended from other animals? Do you think humans just magically poofed onto earth? We know for a fact the earth is much older than the oldest human fossil. We know other animals were around before humans. If poofing creatures on this earth happened back then why hasn't it happened in the last 3 centuries?

Humans share many common genes with Monkeys, Bananas, Zebrafish, Fruit Flies, and basically everything in existence. How can this be explained without evolution? Again if you want to believe that God had his hand and guided things along then fine, I can't disprove that. But I can disprove much of the old testament, because of what we know today about ancient mythology.

 

[BedellBrave]

why couldn't a Christian say evolution was Gods plan?

after all, why would you understand Gods plan?

It could have been (and in part was) - or God could have used all kinds of ways - including snapping "his finger" and everything material is in existence with apparent age. I mean after all, omnipotence (rightly understood) is part-n-parcel with the idea of God.

We certainly can't understand God's plans, ways, actions, thoughts, etc., comprehensively; but only insofar as God reveals such to us in a way we can understand.

The question under consideration what the God of the Bible is revealing in Genesis (taking for granted of course that there is a God, and such God reveals himself to man, and has done so in/thru the Bible - given presuppositions of Christians - so those of you who aren't please bear with me). Are those early chapters what I would call a flat historical account, written according to some modern norms for historical accounts and a sort of quasi-scientific textbook (as ironically both the Ken Hams and Richard Dawkins of the world read it - such "fundies")? Or are they Ancient Near Eastern apologetic, literary stories of origins written against the backdrop of Egyptian and Canaanite stories of origins from the basic same time period, though containing both historical and "scientific" implications? As is obvious, I think the latter.

As the latter, what is being addressed is that Yahweh, the God who has entered into a covenant with man (particularly the Hebrews) is the Creator God. It's an attack on various other world views - atheism, pantheism, polytheism - and especially the polytheism of the Egyptian and Canaanites. it presents origins theologically and covenantally. Does it have historical implications? Sure. Scientific ones? Sure. But those aren't the point and greater care needs to be given when drawing out such implications, imho.

I think the Ken Hams and Richard Dawkins of the world miss the point and in an idiotic-silly fashion apply foreign norms and rules to the text. I wouldn't apply the norms of Metaphysical poetry to a textbook on basic biology. I wouldn't demand that a haiku be understood in keeping with Western writing of jurisprudence.

 

[BedellBrave]

I know some who do, and they're much worse off for it.

i'd add a caveat - I think we work with an overly simplistic notion of "literally." Most, particularly when talking about subjects like this, mean a sort of wooden idea of the word "literal." They mean a sort of meaning of writing devoid of literary figures, sort of like a list of ingredients for a recipe. I think a better way of using that term is to mean that the meaning is in keeping with the literary genre of the piece in question. for instance, when someone says that "B.J. Upton sucks," they most likely mean that they believe his present baseball skills aren't great, not that he's out there sucking on a baby bottle or something similar. Or another for instance closer to the subject, when we are told that "Jesus is the door" in the NT, it doesn't mean he is made of wood and has hinges.

Genre needs to be considered. And some genres use more literary figures than others and to believe in a literal meaning, ought to in my opinion, mean that those literary features are taken into account.

 

[BedellBrave]

I love when people throw theory in quotes. Like it diminishes what it is. Scientific Theory is something that has been proven, it's been repeatedly confirmed through tests and observation. Evolution exists. If you want to say God did it that's fine you can as no one knows how the whole shebang started.

....

Though I understand what you are saying, I think you have to be careful with your use or understanding of "proven." One way and a common and unfortunate way imo, that word is used is with finality, presenting a sort of closed-mindedness which actually inhibits scientific pursuit. There should always be an openness for correction, refinement, advance in our knowledge. I like this definition better:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

Note the italicized phrases.

 

[BedellBrave]

As far as humans go, you're not a mistake or coincidence. Evolution doesn't say that. What evolution says is that changes occurs out of necessity. Why did humans develop stronger brains than other animals? Because it was necessary to survive and thrive.

It would be a fairly straightforward implication of atheistic evolutionary theory and personifying the theory doesn't make it a less valid philosophical point.

 

[BedellBrave]

I don't get though why you don't believe we descended from other animals? Do you think humans just magically poofed onto earth? We know for a fact the earth is much older than the oldest human fossil. We know other animals were around before humans. If poofing creatures on this earth happened back then why hasn't it happened in the last 3 centuries?

"Poofing" creatures as you put it is posited by all in some form or fashion, no?

Also, isn't your 3 centuries time frame too small of a sample size for either "poofing" or "transpeciation"?

 

[BedellBrave]

Humans share many common genes with Monkeys, Bananas, Zebrafish, Fruit Flies, and basically everything in existence. How can this be explained without evolution?

Because it was created by a God who desired that there be common traits - that's an alternative. Commonality doesn't prove or disprove common descendent any more than it proves or disproves a common Creator. It's a inference you draw based on your presuppositions.

 

[BedellBrave]

But I can disprove much of the old testament, because of what we know today about ancient mythology.

Only by assuming and using a fundamentalist mindset.

 

[yeezus]

Yute given to rash overstatements and bold balderdash.

You wouldn't be a christian is you weren't raised that way. You'd be Muslim if you were born in a lot of other countries. You wouldn't believe in god the way you do if it were brought to you at a reasonable age to determine your own beliefs. Most of the people that become religious later in life (at least that I know) are addicts in a X-step program. It happens, sometimes people are looking for something to get them through. But, for the most part, no one would rationally believe that unless it was drilled in to them at a young age.

 

[yeezus]

"Poofing" creatures as you put it is posited by all in some form or fashion, no?

No, not really. Little forms of life are all over the place, microscopic forms. We came from them over billions of years. All life did. They don't just come from no where on an existing planet. This is like science 101. This is why creationism cannot be taught in public schools. It's detrimental to society.

 

[yeezus]

Though I understand what you are saying, I think you have to be careful with your use or understanding of "proven." One way and a common and unfortunate way imo, that word is used is with finality, presenting a sort of closed-mindedness which actually inhibits scientific pursuit. There should always be an openness for correction, refinement, advance in our knowledge. I like this definition better:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

Note the italicized phrases.

So it's been tested repeatedly and has strong evidence to back it up.
Creationism has neither. Not even remotely close.