Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael on January 16, 2010 at 8:56am

Terry

You will find that most here prefer Dr Kent Hovind and Ken Ham to Dennis.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PhilipH on January 16, 2010 at 10:41am

I don't see why not. After all, Darwinian evolution is a scientific THEORY that should be judged on the evidence from experiment and observation in science, and like all scientific theories is only valid because it has not been disproved yet. (Yes I know many creationists and ID advocates would disagree on that last point, but their claimed disprovals have not yet convinced the scientific community.)

People like Richard Dawkins have deliberately muddied the waters by falsely claiming or inferring that the theory of evolution disproves God - it does no such thing and it (like all other aspects of science) is not the exclusive property of atheists.

Also, I think there is a confusion between evangelical Christian and literal fundamentalist. It is only the latter subset of evangelicals that insist on taking every word of the Bible literally and not allowing for the possibility that some of it may be metaphor, parable or poetry. The strict literalist interpretation is only one of several possible interpretations of the book of Genesis, and in my opinion there are many aspects of the text (the difficulty of reconciling Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, the problem of where Cain and Seth's wives came from etc. ) that suggests to me that the strict literal interpretation is not the one that the original authors intended.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on January 22, 2010 at 10:24pm

People like Richard Dawkins have deliberately muddied the waters by falsely claiming or inferring that the theory of evolution disproves God -

Does he actually claim that or indeed infer it?

I think he has stated the probability of the god of the Bible being an actuallity is so miniscule(as are claims of others gods actuallity and other relative supernatural entities) it's a pointless debate, given all are based on here say and wild unsubstantiated claims void of any testable evidence.

Unlike evolution.

JMJ

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John on January 17, 2010 at 11:54pm

Hi Terry,
Can a christian accept evolution? in a nutshell :-

Because belive in evolution requires a belive in millions of years of death and suffering, and the bible discribes God's creation as very good, then it is impossible for a christian to belive in a good God who calls death and sufferin good. So no chrstians should not belive in evolution.

There are other arguements that can be made.i.e. if evolution is true explain the origin of sin, and the need for a saviour.


John

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael on January 18, 2010 at 12:03am

In a nutshell. John , you are wrong. Millions of years was accepted by scientists before any suggested evolution even Darwin's randy grandad in 1800

Anyway I agree with you when you say "no Christians shoud not beleive in evolution" You are spot on.

PS evolution is no expalination of sin, where did you get that from?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John on January 21, 2010 at 11:35pm

Hi Michael,
can you name the scientists who accepted millions of years before evolutin was universaly accepted.

I am only aware of a few scientist who wanted a longer time scale. The accepted age of the earth was that of a recent creation and onkly a few thousand years old.

evolution and sin, if there was no adam then he couldn't 'fall' i.e. rebele against God by eating the forbiden fruit. So where does sin come from?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael on January 22, 2010 at 12:00am

Needham, Buffon, Hutton, Smith, Townsend, Buckland, Sedgwick J Cneybeare, W Coneybeare, Sedgwick, Fox, Adkins, Miller Miller, Cuvier, Lamarck Werner Jameson, Sowerby de la Beche Lyell Hsughton Maillet Phillips Wollaston Silliman Hitchcock FareyPeacock Airy Mantell Milne de Geoffroy Murchison Parkinson W Phillips Plaayfair Gorham, Babbage, Herschel Herschel Herschel Webster D'orbigny Agassiz Charpentier Barrande Bakewell Bowman Daubeny Du Gard Fitton forbes Forbes Greenough Henslow Lewis Jukes Kidd MacCullough Prestwich Pritchard Ramsay Scrope Strickland Trimmer Yates Banks Bell Harcourt Brewster, BrodieMary Buckland Mary Somerville Farish Fleming Horner Humboldt Jenyns Prout Whewell

That's just a few but mostly British In 30minutes I could double the list as I have lots of omissions

If you had asked me who after 1750 accepted 6000 years it would have been much quicker ;

Kirwan Young Ure and Kirkby. I am struggling to find more

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael on January 22, 2010 at 10:27am

And some more who accepted 6000 yrs Murray and Rhind.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on January 22, 2010 at 10:32pm

if there was no adam then he couldn't 'fall' i.e. rebele against God by eating the forbiden fruit. So where does sin come from?

Define sin?

JMJ

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Terry Almonsen on January 18, 2010 at 12:56am

John
Denis Lamoureux, who is trained to the PhD level in both evolutionary biology and theology, has some lectures on what he refers to as "The Sin-Death Problem."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU8H8o1f-yg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmMeOIVt11I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gh3jmE6E-E

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John on January 21, 2010 at 11:41pm

Hi Terry
I don't do links. the idea is that YOU post YOUR answer here.
Let me turn the problem around, why did God take so long creating the world and the universe. Can you image it he took SIX days to creat every thing, why such a long time?

No I'm not being funny it's a serious question, after all in the new testiment we are told at Jesus's secnd coming every thing will be changed in an instant, in the blink of an eye.

Or are you consistent in your understanding of the bible and this change will also take millions of years?

Please answr this yourself.


John

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Old Peculier on January 22, 2010 at 10:44am

This is a good point, which I was going to make myself - jolly annoyed that I was beaten to it.
Billions of years of evolution makes sense; instantaneous creation by an omnipotent God makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why an omnipotent God would take six days. The reason God is described as taking six days is, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, purely poetic: it makes for a rather grand and moving description when God is described as doing various things on each successive day, with the sonorous repeated "and the evening and the morning were the ... day". I further put it to you that the poetry and the beauty of early Genesis is almost entirely destroyed by taking it as mere literal truth.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 84
• Next ›
• Page