Posted on 09/20/2005 5:35:52 PM PDT by curiosity
Most adult Sunday school classes don't raise eyebrows, but my church is planning to hold one that's sure to. It's called "Evolution for Christians," and it will be taught this winter by David Bush, a member of the church I lead, Fairfax Presbyterian. David is an articulate government retiree who has been interested in this topic for nearly two decades, teaches a class on theories of the origins of life every five years or so, and once again has really done his homework. His view is that science and religion answer two different sets of questions about creation, with science answering the "how" questions, and religion answering the "why" ones. "With a little bit of wisdom and tolerance on each side," he tells me, "I think they can complement rather than contradict each other."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
" For me, and for many of my parishioners, a core religious conviction is that God is the creator of life and the one who gives it meaning and purpose. Any questions about the mechanics of life are best left to science."
Not bad.
I'd substitute "everything" for "life" -- but, otherwise, not too far from how this Christian who is also a physical chemist views this (non- to me) issue...
Are you making this stuff up? I have been a Christian for 30 plus years, am an avid student of the bible, and have NEVER heard that interpretation of Genesis. When in doubt, read the bible literally unless it clearly indicates the author intended that portion to be poetry or some sort of literary device (like using metaphors or similes). Sort of like "she runs like the wind" or "fast as lightning"...those are very obviously not meant to be literal. Same with the bible.
I became a Christian on faith but it is the bible that keeps me from doubting. It is the most amazing ancient document ever for many many reasons. When in doubt, who you gonna believe, one disillusioned guy named Darwin who used very simplistic ideas to describe very complex processes and systems or 40 authors, many of whom died for what they wrote about.
"If we are only getting better all the time, all we have to do is wait."
The idea that we are getting better all the time is not part of evolution. It stems from a misconception of evolution. For example, snakes evolved from more complex animals that used to have legs (I believe.) Evolution can move in any direction, toward more complexity or less complexity.
Over time, according to the theory of evolution, a particular organism tends to become more perfectly adapted to the particular environment, it is in. Inevitably, the environment changes making that organism suddenly less adapted to its environment.
Hmmm... I accept the findings and discoveries of thousands upon thousands of scientists since Darwin why have produced mountains of evidence supporting evolution.
Broomstick demanded; broomstick brought.
I also want to see the half-amphibian and half-mammal.">
Take your pick from this progression:
Pick one and Google it. Here's a web page on Thrinaxodon for starters but have a ball.
Or fish-reptile-mammal-bird whatever.
A mammal-bird transitional would be a disproof of evolution. (Evolution is actually falsifiable but hasn't been falsified! Can your theory say that?) Guess what? We don't have any of those.
God could have created the world and life any way he wanted. He chose evolution. Why? We don't know, but the Bible tells us God's ways are not our ways.
Plus what kind of a loving God uses principles like survival of the fittest?
Why not?
What makes this pastor or any other so-called "christian evolutionist" think a God who gives us evolution and an untruthful/unreliable book of "poetry" and myths is therefore, interested in or capable of helping us in our lives? I would say their version of God's "word" is nothing more than a rusty bucket full of holes, incapable of watering anything but the ground.
There's nothing unreliable about the Bible, nor does it contain any holes, so long as it is used as intend: as a source of spiritual and moral truth. It is not intended to be a science textbook.
You are asking for the join between various tips of the evolutionary tree. Well the join occurs further down the tree - ie in the past. The link between the reptiles and bird lineages was long ago for example, and while there are fossils of such bird-reptile forms long ago, there are no living bird-reptile creatures that have survived to this day. There is no reason they should still exist, and certainly no reason at all that modern reptiles would be turning into mammals, or birds.
No, they shouldn't still be everywhere. If you don't know what evolution is or says, how do you know it's wrong?
Some pretty good talent on FR tonight!
"God was sovereign in every detail of the writing and preservation of His word. It is infallible, not subject to the limitations of human authorship. Or hadn't you thought of that?"
So how do you explain the evidence for the earth being billions of years old?
My main argument against Evolution is not theological. I just dont like being lied to.
My BS-meter is hair-trigger and I did not believe in Evolution long before I new there was a theological reason to oppose it.
As a matter of fact, I was raised a Catholic who was taught that Evolution is compatible with Christian teaching. I believed that up until about college, when the lack of evidence for it drove me to believe it was the ultimate conformist drivel.
Nonsense.
Are you saying that I can not believe in God and evolution at the same time?
Genesis 1 was not intended to be taken literally. It's purpose is to convey the truth that God is the ultimate creator of the universe. The details, such as time, order, and the like, are merely poetic and allegorical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.