Replies

First, almost every scientist could be proven wrong about some idea of theirs. Therefore that point of yours means absolutely nothing.

Second,I do not know if anyone has ever been able to prove that Darwinian evolution is "true." If you can point me to such proof, please do so.

Even if Darwinian evolution is considered "true" today, it could certainly be proven "untrue" tomorrow. If that is the case, then your second point means nothing.

The central point in this whole debate is whether the Bible is true or not. Evolution raises some serious theological questions. First, the Bible says the wages of sin is death. If there were billions of years preceding the rise of humans and the introduction of sin into the world, what accounted for all of that death?

Second, other places in the Bible refer to the creation of the world. Exodus 20 for example says that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. If that statement is not true, then how can you establish the truth of any biblical statement. For example, how can one establish the validity of the virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection, His divinity, His promised return, or the promise of eternity?

If texts referring to origins are debatable because of relatively modern theories that seem cogent and are accepted by "scientists," why should any of these biblical ideas be accepted? They certainly seem to be contrary to "scientific" principles. Should they be discarded as well? If so, you would be left with a Bible that is eviscerated.

The only relevant inquiry in the end is what is the source of "truth?" Is it something determined by the finite minds of feeble men, or does it reside in the Almighty? In order for us to know truth, we must possess omniscience and omnipresence. You must be able to be everywhere to find truth and have the ability to truly know everything.

I do not think that any mere man could make such a claim. Therefore, it would be simply impossible for mortal finite men to establish truth.

Second,I do not know if anyone has ever been able to prove that Darwinian evolution is "true." If you can point me to such proof, please do so.

No theory in science is ever "proven true". If you understood the scientific method, you would know this.

Even if Darwinian evolution is considered "true" today, it could certainly be proven "untrue" tomorrow.

If it could be falsified, then it certainly hasn't been "proven true".

The central point in this whole debate is whether the Bible is true or not.

Why is it always the Bible? Why is that particular religious text? There are a lot of other religious story collections out there, with their own creation myths, so why is it always a test to see if the Bible is true when the subject of evolution comes up? Evolution raises some serious theological questions.

Mayne. That's an issue with certain interpretations of scripture not matching up with observed reality, however. It is not an attempt on evolution to challenge religion.

First, the Bible says the wages of sin is death. If there were billions of years preceding the rise of humans and the introduction of sin into the world, what accounted for all of that death?

I'm not a Christian, so don't consider my answers to be from an "expert" (and I'm sure that someone will use that fact to dismiss anything I say without comment, because that's so much easier than addressing facts), but I have heard it argued that the "death" referenced is a "spiritual death". As evolution does not address spirituality in any way, there is no conflict.

Second, other places in the Bible refer to the creation of the world. Exodus 20 for example says that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. If that statement is not true, then how can you establish the truth of any biblical statement. For example, how can one establish the validity of the virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection, His divinity, His promised return, or the promise of eternity?

I dunno. I guess that you've got a problem, because there is absolutely no physical evidence that the world was created in six days, and in fact there is quite a bit of evidence that this planet came about over a process of millions of years.

I wonder why you bring that up, however. The evolution does not address, in any way, how the earth came to exist.

If texts referring to origins are debatable because of relatively modern theories that seem cogent and are accepted by "scientists," why should any of these biblical ideas be accepted? They certainly seem to be contrary to "scientific" principles. Should they be discarded as well? If so, you would be left with a Bible that is eviscerated.

You do bring up interesting points, though I'm not sure why. None of it has any bearing on the validity of evolution theory. I'll leave it to the Christians here who accept evolution to answer your concerns on that matter further, as I've never cared to give it much thought (since I'm not a believer).

The only relevant inquiry in the end is what is the source of "truth?" Is it something determined by the finite minds of feeble men, or does it reside in the Almighty?

False dichotomy fallacy.

In order for us to know truth, we must possess omniscience and omnipresence. You must be able to be everywhere to find truth and have the ability to truly know everything.

True. As such, the best that we can do is to establish with as much certainty as possible -- which, of course, will never be 100% certainty -- the nature of reality through the most reliable methods available. We must also keep in mind that anything that we think that we "know" may be wrong, so we must have a method for revising our pool of "knowledge" should observed facts contradict what we have currently established as "truth". Fortunately, the scientific method does exactly that.

I do not think that any mere man could make such a claim. Therefore, it would be simply impossible for mortal finite men to establish truth.

Yes, which is why, as I said, we have a means for revising what we consider truth when our current "truths" are contradicted. I'm not sure what your point here is.