Replies

If evolution were ever proven beyond any doubt it would not affect my faith in God. Not one bit. I never really understand why this is an issue for the faithful as if their faith hinged on all of these little details

It's actually in philosophy that the theology would play out: if (a) evolution were true, and (b) man was proved to have evolved, then there is no special creation of man. If there is no special creation of man, then man does not bear the image of God. If man does not bear the image of God, then there is no moral imperative against murder, or rape, or respecting property. Therefore, if evolution applies to man then morality does not.

I”t’s actually in philosophy that the theology would play out: if (a) evolution were true, and (b) man was proved to have evolved, then there is no special creation of man. If there is no special creation of man, then man does not bear the image of God. If man does not bear the image of God, then there is no moral imperative against murder, or rape, or respecting property. Therefore, if evolution applies to man then morality does not.”

Perfect explanation.

More importantly, it is a clear case for the abandonment of all research and study that may question or discredit Creation Science. Additionally. the more people may buy into this so called theory of evolution, the more the society and large and families will fall apart.

If we are just descended from monkey in the zoo who throws poop at other monkeys, then those who have been brainwashed into believing that creation stuff will have little option but to be violent.

I don’t agree with that at all. I think that what distinguishes man from other animals is our understanding of right from wrong. Whether God made man from a lump of clay or worked through eons in evolution: at some point a human became self-aware. With that knowledge came responsibilities.

Although I do not believe in a literal reading of Genesis, I think the story of the Fall is a perfect metaphor for when man set himself apart from the rest of the animals.

I wouldn’t say that follows. It depends on what you mean by ‘image of God’. I don’t take that to mean a literal, physical image. This seems to contradict God’s very nature. God is spaceless and timeless. He has no shape or form. A God with a literal form would be more akin to what the Mormons envision.

Take a look at the argument from the beginning of the universe. When discussing what possible causes there could be for the universe, two candidate emerge, both filling the criteria of being spaceless and timeless.

A) An abstract object
B) An unembodied mind

The nature of an unembodied mind (or God in this case) is that it is without body. It is simply what we might describe as ‘an entity’.

While I agree with the premise of what you say, that if indeed man evolved from time+matter+chance, and there is no God, then certainly morality is just a delusion.

But let us for a moment think of a scenario in which God creates the universe with the capacity for life, and perhaps even begins creation of the first organism. Over time, several organisms evolve, some even have two legs and become more resourceful than the others, but they are still animals. They do not have any notion of ‘should’ or ‘should not’, they die and that’s the end of them, and they have no empathy for each other or God whom they are unaware of.
Then, God decides on which creature he shall give his image to, or to put it more accurately, which will he give a soul to. The soul is the most precious of creations and no animal has it, for it is eternal and is capable of those things that crude biology is incapable of. And let us suppose that humans are gifted with soul. It is at that moment that the species Homo Sapien Sapiens becomes Mankind.

Adam and Eve may have been the first Man and Woman, but may not have been the first Homo Sapien Sapiens.

All just theory and speculation of course, and it is contingent on how you interpret both Genesis and modern biology.

It’s actually in philosophy that the theology would play out: if (a) evolution were true, and (b) man was proved to have evolved, then there is no special creation of man. If there is no special creation of man, then man does not bear the image of God. If man does not bear the image of God, then there is no moral imperative against murder, or rape, or respecting property. Therefore, if evolution applies to man then morality does not.

<><><><><<

Logical fail.

You’ve made a giant assumption, completely unsupported by anything you’ve written - likely because it is an article of faith for you.

I wonder if you know what that assumption is.