The Dirty Little Secret Is Out: Religious Faith and Evolution Are Incompatible

ICR ^ | March 20, 2009 | Frank Sherwin, M.A.

[GodGunsGuts]

In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith...

[LeGrande]

So, starlifter, just where is the center of the universe? I've been on pins and needles for a month.

Everywhere and nowhere is the center of the Universe. The Universe is curved. The question is the same as where are the four corners of the world.

[metmom]

By claiming that something is allegorical, one can assign any meaning to it that one wishes.

That makes it rather convenient, because then one can conform Scripture to fit one’s belief system instead of conforming one’s belief system to Scripture.

It allows man to define truth rather than God.

It gets one away from the messy complication of being accountable to God and allows one to be accountable to only oneself- being true to oneself.

[metmom]

Faith and science are fully compatible on the evolution issue.

Then why did God go to the trouble of telling us that He not only created different animal groups on different days, but the source of materials for the different animal groups and man?

Day 3 Gen 1: 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

Day 5 Gen 1: 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Day 6 Gen 1: 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Gen 2:21 & 22 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

I don't know how much more clear God could have been that He didn't use evolution to create life on this planet. The language and wording of those declarative statements lends itself to a factual, direct reading of the passages. There is nothing in there that suggests an allegorical reading is intended to be made.

[Clara Lou]

Well said.

[metmom]

Go look it up and debate it from a level of quasi knowledge.

IWO, you can't even back up your own statements. What a major cop out.

You're really out of touch with the way science is supposed to be done. The person making the statements is the one responsible for providing the evidence to back them up.

You don't make statements and then send someone on a wild goose chase to provide the evidence for comments YOU made when they don't even know what you're thinking because they can't read your mind.

You can start by identifying the 70 branches of science to begin with. Then you can provide what they use as evidence.

Take your time. I realize that that is a lot of information to gather, even if you give only one example per branch.

[metmom]

“Why is it you believe that bible story and not the other ones???”

Perhaps you should address your question more broadly to the vast majority of Christian denominations who can clearly see the compatability of evolution with their own faith.

Perhaps he's not interested in what the vast majority of Christian denominations think, seeing as he asked you specifically a specific question.

Don't think for a minute that no one can't see the deflection of the question so you don't have to provide an honest, direct answer to it.

[metmom]

Thinking the Bible isn’t 100% literal doesnt reduce its value one bit.

Thinking that the Bible is 100% allegorical does.

[metmom]

So, the whole idea of Biblical Literalism is absurd to me.

The whole concept of Biblical Literalism, is a strawman erected by the evos to discredit creationists.

When someone simply takes God at His word, the evos immediately declare that the believer is then demanding that everyone interpret ALL of Scripture in a literal fashion regardless of the fact that all of it is not meant to be read literally. There is no one who does that; who does not recognize poetry, song, metaphor, allegory, parable, etc., especially when it states it, like when it says that Jesus taught them this parable.... for example.

It's the evos who are the ones demanding either all literal or none, not the believers.

[metmom]

A man with enough hubris to claim that he knows the unknowable.

Just like evos who claim to know exactly how life came to be on this planet and how God did it.

[Migraine]

A non sequitor (sic) in a discussion thread? OMG? This must be the first time!!!

There IS a lot of talking-past each other, isn't there?

[metmom]

I just love how freaky Christians want to make others believe that science doesn’t exist.

Who's that? Who's trying to make others believe that science doesn't exist?

And, I really like how so called Christians turn everything around and skew the Bible to their beliefs, lol.

Like those who call themselves Christians and try to use the Bible to convince us that God used evolution by supporting it with Scripture?

I won’t argue “science” with you, there’s many here more informed to do that, but I will argue “Christianity” with you.

Fine. So what's your beef with Christianity?

[tacticalogic]

There is no one who does that; who does not recognize poetry, song, metaphor, allegory, parable, etc., especially when it states it, like when it says that Jesus taught them this parable.... for example.

You're positive nobody has ever made a mistake of interpretation of the Bible in this manner?

[metmom]

However, you remain among the masters at the practice of Christian fascism.

Ooo, a new made up evoterm.

What's "Christian fascism"?

[metmom]

Are we pushing the idea that the “scientitsts” should be authoritative on whether people’s religious beliefs are “correct” now?

It sure seems that way from the evos comments on this thread.

[tacticalogic]

Are we back to every question being answered with accusations of projection?

[metmom]

That’s not what I said. Try not to read too much into it.

What I said is that there is no one who does not recognize that those different styles don’t exist in the Bible and shouldn’t be read as such. I never said that people don’t sometimes make a mistake about how something is read.

[metmom]

Dawkins.....

[tacticalogic]

What I said is that there is no one who does not recognize that those different styles don’t exist in the Bible and shouldn’t be read as such. I never said that people don’t sometimes make a mistake about how something is read.

Who decide who's correct and who's in error when there's a difference of opinion?

[tacticalogic]

Jim Jones...?

[WVKayaker]

This “professor” must not be a Catholic. Catholicism says evolution is a scientific fact. As a Catholic, I’m fine with this because evolution is a fact of life.

********

...The Catholic church is just one major faith group now rapidly moving environment to the fore of its social teachings. "Climate change, biotechnology, trade justice and pollution are all now being debated at a far higher level by the world's major religions," said Martin Palmer, secretary general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (Arc)....

The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a bunch of guys in funny hats, who claim to be speaking for God. The Mormon church claims that you can't get to heaven, unless Joe Smith approves, and if you're really a good tither, and have a lot of babies, you can BE (a)god (sorry, girls, this does not apply to you. Oh, yeah, the Pope's a guy, too!?

Evolution is NOT a fact of life. It is a set of ASSUMPTIONS, devoid of evidence. Each new PROOF offered, is mere speculation. It's basic assumption is that there was something around to start their theoretical climb out of the goo. The Big Bang is considered a "given", but what "banged" is again, just more speculation.

I believe in the Big bang theory. I am a Christian. I believe God created the universe. He spoke it into existence, when He deigned to do so. The length of His "days" were not specified. He did establish a day cycle here, with the perfect rotation around a sun, that provides us with just the right things necessary for "life".

There are two fundamental flaws in evolutionary thought. First is that something comes from nothing. The EVOS claim to be "scientists, yet by FAITH, accept anti-science. Second is that claim to know how long this planet has been developing, and how life developed. Their faith in evolution requires them to deny the very sciences they claim, and their contorted explanations with new discovery, are only equaled by those in our present Administration...

As for me, God said it, I believe it!