[jesus_for_me]

I know there is probably a thread about this. I was surprised to meet a christian who believed in evolution and was just wondering what some of your takes on the issue is.
state what you believe and why is what I mean.

[JerryLove]

I believe in logical conclusions based on overwhelming evidence.

... and flying spaghettimonsterism.

[acrossthesirion]

Rowan Williams' (Archbishop of Canterbury) comments are probably the closest thing to my own view:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03...cks_evolution/

Especially his concerns about what happens when we let Science place Theology.

[tht00]

I probably fit best as a 'theistic evolutionist'.

From wiki:
Theistic evolution is the general opinion that classical religious teachings
about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific
understanding about biological evolution.

I used to be a staunch creationist... even to the point of arguing and debating for it online. However, as I asked questions and discovered evidence in new light, I could either live in denial of this evidence... or change my views.

There are certainly things I question and don't understand about evolution... but it became obvious to me that the model that most creationists put forth as 'absolute truth', is in fact, not true. *shrug* I don't put much stock in the creationism/evolution debate anymore... and don't see how it'd be a good idea to cause dissent in church.

People are free to believe whatever they like. However, I'm not a big fan of creationism being used as an evangelism tool... nor the teaching of ID (aka creationism) being taught as science.

Besides, I don't care much for mainstream American Evangelical Christianity (which is one of the few sects remaining that promote and believe literal creationism). It creates a popularized cookie-cutter mold for Christians to fit in (you've got to have the right music, the right T-shirts, the right political views, the right bumper-stickers, etc, etc) -- much of which I actually think can be unhealthy. Abandon are the ideas of critical thought, of self-analysis, and objectivity.

Oh well. Again, I don't make a big deal of this stuff, but since the topic was here... [/end rant]

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

I know there is probably a thread about this. I was surprised to meet a christian who believed in evolution and was just wondering what some of your takes on the issue is.
state what you believe and why is what I mean.

'Believe' is such a weird word for this. I 'believe' in evolution like I 'believe' that cancer is caused by a genetic mutation. I accept evolution and believe it to be the most logical explanation behind the present day diversity of species.

While I believe in God, I think calling myself a 'thiestic evolutionist' would be innappropriate. I think the terms is just used to say something like 'I accept evolution, but oh, I still believe in God'. I believe God has a hand in evolution probably in the same way that He has a hand in every natural occurance (to what extent that is, I don't know).

I know you're probably shocked to find out that Christians accept evolution. But, if we as Christians profess that God has given us senses and the brainpower to discover and explore our world, then we should accept the fact that reason and evidence has led to evolution. For me, I will continue to use the faculties and tools that God has given me in order to discover truth.

Does evolution being true take away from the Genesis story? I don't think so. Much of the Bible is not meant to display historical/physical truth (ie. the parables, visions, etc.) but allegorical, spiritual and transcendent truth. The Genesis story may be a parable about the selfishness of man and this being the cause of our disconnect with God.

In the end, Genesis being historically true or not does not change the fact that I need God.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by OneHope

I know you're probably shocked to find out that Christians accept evolution. But, if we as Christians profess that God has given us senses and the brainpower to discover and explore our world, then we should accept the fact that reason and evidence has led to evolution. For me, I will continue to use the faculties and tools that God has given me in order to discover truth.

Of course we also believe that man is bent towards sin, and frequently chooses creation over the creator. I'm all for using our brainpower, but we can't naively assume our sinful nature doesn't affect the way we interpret data.

[jesus_for_me]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I believe in logical conclusions based on overwhelming evidence.

... and flying spaghettimonsterism.

I would like to see this evidence. In all my life I have never actually seen any for evolution but then I haven't looked that far into the topic.

Originally Posted by tht00

I probably fit best as a 'theistic evolutionist'.

From wiki:
Theistic evolution is the general opinion that classical religious teachings
about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific
understanding about biological evolution.

I used to be a staunch creationist... even to the point of arguing and debating for it online. However, as I asked questions and discovered evidence in new light, I could either live in denial of this evidence... or change my views.

But what was the evidence? And how do God and evo fit in the same world to your understanding? I mean as far as I know the whole reason Darwin had his brain fart was to destroy God.

There are certainly things I question and don't understand about evolution... but it became obvious to me that the model that most creationists put forth as 'absolute truth', is in fact, not true. *shrug* I don't put much stock in the creationism/evolution debate anymore... and don't see how it'd be a good idea to cause dissent in church.

Well I am interested now. what is untrue about what the Bible says?

People are free to believe whatever they like. However, I'm not a big fan of creationism being used as an evangelism tool... nor the teaching of ID (aka creationism) being taught as science.

For evangelism no. But why not teach it as science? It's about as much science as evolution is. neither of them have fact based proof as far as I know. There is some historical fact to the creation story.

Besides, I don't care much for mainstream American Evangelical Christianity (which is one of the few sects remaining that promote and believe literal creationism). It creates a popularized cookie-cutter mold for Christians to fit in (you've got to have the right music, the right T-shirts, the right political views, the right bumper-stickers, etc, etc) -- much of which I actually think can be unhealthy. Abandon are the ideas of critical thought, of self-analysis, and objectivity.

As far as dress and all that goes you have a point. But as for political views and science, a believer in God should have certain views based on what the Bible tells us.

Oh well. Again, I don't make a big deal of this stuff, but since the topic was here... [/end rant]

Well you seem very sure that the creation story of the Bible isn't as true as some might say. I am wondering what convinced you of this.

Originally Posted by OneHope

'Believe' is such a weird word for this. I 'believe' in evolution like I 'believe' that cancer is caused by a genetic mutation. I accept evolution and believe it to be the most logical explanation behind the present day diversity of species.

I used the word believe because for something to be beyond believing it must be supported by "fact".

While I believe in God, I think calling myself a 'thiestic evolutionist' would be innappropriate. I think the terms is just used to say something like 'I accept evolution, but oh, I still believe in God'. I believe God has a hand in evolution probably in the same way that He has a hand in every natural occurance (to what extent that is, I don't know).

I know you're probably shocked to find out that Christians accept evolution. But, if we as Christians profess that God has given us senses and the brainpower to discover and explore our world, then we should accept the fact that reason and evidence has led to evolution. For me, I will continue to use the faculties and tools that God has given me in order to discover truth.

The 1st time it was a shock but I do know you guys are out there now. I do wonder why you believe this way though. Have you ever read anything by AIG?

Does evolution being true take away from the Genesis story?

You are making an assumption here. Lets try not to state anything as though it is fact until we have put forth proof. Since most of you who have posted take the evolution side I will ask you to prove your point 1st.

I don't think so. Much of the Bible is not meant to display historical/physical truth (ie. the parables, visions, etc.) but allegorical, spiritual and transcendent truth. The Genesis story may be a parable about the selfishness of man and this being the cause of our disconnect with God.

ok. so how do you tell which parts of the Bible are parable and which parts are not?the firts 4 words of genesis 1:1 are in the beginning God. do you take that as parable or as physical/real truth?

In the end, Genesis being historically true or not does not change the fact that I need God.

But is does change the fact of Gods existence.

[jesus_for_me]

Originally Posted by Sean

Of course we also believe that man is bent towards sin, and frequently chooses creation over the creator. I'm all for using our brainpower, but we can't naively assume our sinful nature doesn't affect the way we interpret data.

Sorry for posting twice but this post wasn't here before. We are bent towards sin. I agree with this 100% and yes we cannot alow our agenda's to cause us to interpret the data in the wrong way. There's a good word. data. According to the scientific method, to become a fact an idea is 1st a hypothesis(a guess). Then data is collected and tested to see if the conclusions agree with the hypothesis. If they do then it is now a theory. If they don't then the hypothesis must be adapted to fit the conclusions drawn from the data. As far as I actually have read, evolution never made it past the hypothesis part.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

But what was the evidence? And how do God and evo fit in the same world to your understanding? I mean as far as I know the whole reason Darwin had his brain fart was to destroy God.

You have been grossly misinformed, then.

[jesus_for_me]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

You have been grossly misinformed, then.

son a little history might help you out here. I don't know much in the way of science but I do know lots about history. and darwin was in a seminary and was picked on by many of his fellow students. He also had a very strained relationship with his father and these all led up to him viewing God in the very same way that richard dawkins sees God. Darwin was not a scientist(now that I think about it neither is Dawkins).
he was a philosopher of sorts and he came to hate God and any stories of his deathbed recantation you've heard are a very big lie I can tell you that much. people who were actually there for his death said it wasn't true.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Sean

Of course we also believe that man is bent towards sin, and frequently chooses creation over the creator. I'm all for using our brainpower, but we can't naively assume our sinful nature doesn't affect the way we interpret data.

True, but that could go both ways. By your reasoning though we would have to take everything as suspicious. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea but there comes a time when we have to move beyond that in order to apply the knowledge as best we can.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

Well you seem very sure that the creation story of the Bible isn't as true as some might say. I am wondering what convinced you of this.

You say not true. But something doesn't have to be historically true to be true. The story of the Good Samaritan didn't actually happen but it portrays the transcendent truths that it is right to help strangers, that it doesn't matter what nationality you belong to, etc.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

The 1st time it was a shock but I do know you guys are out there now. I do wonder why you believe this way though. Have you ever read anything by AIG?

I read AIG and it made me become an evolutionist. If that's the best evidence that Christians can put forward against evolution then we don't really have a compelling argument. It also made me mad that Christians are investing money into proving creationism when there are much more pressing concerns.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

You are making an assumption here. Lets try not to state anything as though it is fact until we have put forth proof.

I was merely stating that if evolution is true it doesn't really change much.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

Since most of you who have posted take the evolution side I will ask you to prove your point 1st.

I've never read it but Darwin's 'Origin of Species' kind of starts off the argument and the idea. Darwin got some things wrong, like every scientist who brings forth a new idea. But since he lived scientists have been building on and tweaking his idea in order to develop a comprehensive theory. There is not one book called 'evolution' which proves the theory but there are thousands of scientific papers and journals which provide evidence of evolution and when taken together form the comprehensive theory that is evolution.

Some Christians state that evolution is 'just a theory'. The thing is, is that gravity is just a theory as well. We weren't around 60 million years ago, we did not actually see evolution occur we can only make inferences based on what we can know. We don't know whether gravity occurs 100% of the time; we see the effects of gravity, but we don't see gravity. The fact that they are both theories means that right now they are the best explanations for what we observe.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

ok. so how do you tell which parts of the Bible are parable and which parts are not?

We use tools like, off the tope of my head, reason, science, linguistics, philosophy and history.

Originally Posted by jesus_for-me

the firts 4 words of genesis 1:1 are in the beginning God. do you take that as parable or as physical/real truth?

If Genesis 1:1 was not there then surely the Bible would still show the existence of God. I do not doubt the idea that the Bible was inspired by God and I do not doubt the truth of Genesis. I do however think that Genesis is not trying to show historical truth.

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

But is does change the fact of Gods existence.

Evolution does not mean that God does exist. God's existence does not depend on whether or not Genesis is historical fact.

You should know, just in case you don't already, that the theory of evolution does not say anything about the origin of life (theory of biogenesis) nor anything about the origins of the universe (big bang theory).

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

son a little history might help you out here. I don't know much in the way of science but I do know lots about history. and darwin was in a seminary and was picked on by many of his fellow students. He also had a very strained relationship with his father and these all led up to him viewing God in the very same way that richard dawkins sees God. Darwin was not a scientist(now that I think about it neither is Dawkins).
he was a philosopher of sorts and he came to hate God and any stories of his deathbed recantation you've heard are a very big lie I can tell you that much. people who were actually there for his death said it wasn't true.

As Darwin is only one of thousands of evolutionary scientists, what he did or said matters little in the creation v evolution debate.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

son a little history might help you out here. I don't know much in the way of science but I do know lots about history. and darwin was in a seminary and was picked on by many of his fellow students. He also had a very strained relationship with his father and these all led up to him viewing God in the very same way that richard dawkins sees God. Darwin was not a scientist(now that I think about it neither is Dawkins).
he was a philosopher of sorts and he came to hate God and any stories of his deathbed recantation you've heard are a very big lie I can tell you that much. people who were actually there for his death said it wasn't true.

You must have been reading some tremendously biased biographies, then. While I certainly understand that he never recanted his scientific theories on his deathbed, Darwin refrained from speaking or writing about the theological implications of his work.

[jesus_for_me]

Originally Posted by OneHope

True, but that could go both ways. By your reasoning though we would have to take everything as suspicious. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea but there comes a time when we have to move beyond that in order to apply the knowledge as best we can.

And it is here where we must separate knowledge from agenda.

You say not true. But something doesn't have to be historically true to be true. The story of the Good Samaritan didn't actually happen but it portrays the transcendent truths that it is right to help strangers, that it doesn't matter what nationality you belong to, etc.

yes. But we know that jesus was telling a story there.it says in genesis that god created the heavens and the earth. It is making a statement of fact. It doesn't mention where the line is drawn at which it goes from that to a story.

I read AIG and it made me become an evolutionist. If that's the best evidence that Christians can put forward against evolution then we don't really have a compelling argument. It also made me mad that Christians are investing money into proving creationism when there are much more pressing concerns.

well if it's that bad i would assume that by now they would have been disproven on many levels. But as long as they have been around there arguments have yet to see a disproving argument.

I was merely stating that if evolution is true it doesn't really change much.

but it does. How do you know that God exists?

I've never read it but Darwin's 'Origin of Species' kind of starts off the argument and the idea. Darwin got some things wrong, like every scientist who brings forth a new idea. But since he lived scientists have been building on and tweaking his idea in order to develop a comprehensive theory. There is not one book called 'evolution' which proves the theory but there are thousands of scientific papers and journals which provide evidence of evolution and when taken together form the comprehensive theory that is evolution.

They do a good job of explaining how it might work but I have yet to see an example of it. even dawkins couldn't think of one when asked.look here.

Some Christians state that evolution is 'just a theory'. The thing is, is that gravity is just a theory as well. We weren't around 60 million years ago, we did not actually see evolution occur we can only make inferences based on what we can know. We don't know whether gravity occurs 100% of the time; we see the effects of gravity, but we don't see gravity. The fact that they are both theories means that right now they are the best explanations for what we observe.

1st off. gravity is a fact. it is a law. if you drop something it will fall. second is that we still don't know that the earth is even that old. if I say to you we weren't around 10,000 years ago to see if adam and eve were real after God created the world. what can you say against that? it's the exact same argument you just made.the only difference is that the moons receding of the earth supports my argument.among other things.

We use tools like, off the tope of my head, reason, science, linguistics, philosophy and history.

science doesn't have anything to do with which parts of the bible are physycal or not.as for the rest that you mentioned I'll just ask. why trust a flawed man to tell you what it says? how do you know that he know?

If Genesis 1:1 was not there then surely the Bible would still show the existence of God. I do not doubt the idea that the Bible was inspired by God and I do not doubt the truth of Genesis. I do however think that Genesis is not trying to show historical truth.

but how do you know that when it mentions God and satin it's not just symbolic of your every day iner struggles?

Evolution does not mean that God does exist. God's existence does not depend on whether or not Genesis is historical fact.

but if what genesis says isn't physically true then how do we know that the rest of the bible is physically true?

You should know, just in case you don't already, that the theory of evolution does not say anything about the origin of life (theory of biogenesis) nor anything about the origins of the universe (big bang theory).

yet it does depend on those things. it wouldn't work any other way.and it's abiogenesis and it isn't even a theory any more. it was dis-proven a very long time ago.

my biggest problem with evolution is that it 1 defies genetics,physics,and entrapy. among other part of science.

2nd. it is the cause of sexism,racism,and nazziism.

[jesus_for_me]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

You must have been reading some tremendously biased biographies, then. While I certainly understand that he never recanted his scientific theories on his deathbed, Darwin refrained from speaking or writing about the theological implications of his work.

and yet they were largely influenced by lyle and that other guy.who's theory's were far off. 1of them was that all life is competing for survival. this is true only within a spicies.

the other was the the future is the key to the past. this is just stupid all together.

also the buzzbee manuscripts which are very anti God. he may not have spoken or written about it but his teachers tell us what we need to know without him saying a word. like I said. a little history goes a long way.