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...

[Bryan24]

God gave me a brain, too.

Darwinistic Evolution is incompatible with common sense, much less creation. If God can speak any part of this universe into existence, he can speak it into existence at any state he wants to.

[P-Marlowe]

It is entirely possible to give due credit and respect to both, at the same time.

It is entirely possible that pigs will grow wings and fly.

[Dog Gone]

Nobody has ever been a YEC without being a Biblical literalist first.

This should settle the question of whether they’re arguing science or religion. They won’t admit it for the most part, although some do. “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” is a perfectly valid personal choice to make although it is based on some pretty large assumptions.

But most view any new fact which emerges as a challenge to their beliefs, and look to any source to help discredit the scientific finding. There is good money to be made in attacking science for the mental comfort of the YECs, so there is no shortage of creationist sites which offer all kinds of interesting disinformation.

There are some evolutionists who are atheists. There are many with religious faith who are evolutionists.

Science has no bone to pick with religion. It’s outside the realm of science, so it has no scientific tools to examine religion.

Religion has no such bounds. It can take an opinion on anything, including science, and inform you that you must agree or you’re going to hell.

[TXnMA]

Ping, folks, to an astute comment on an article -- posted by FR's resident YEC-spammer -- that purports to declare our belief position to be "incompatible"...

No time to comment further -- or, even read the full article.

~~~~~~BEGIN PASTE~~~~~~
I'm off to direct an archaeological survey crew that is investigating an area that

1. is the site of a vanished 1850's town that "had plenty of saloons and whorehouses and a racetrack -- but never had a church or school"

2. is now a bunch of lake homes on a bluff overlooking a beautiful natural lake fed by a "delicious", big spring (so described by the joint survey crew that surveyed the TX-LA boundary -- that passes only a couple of hundred yards east of the lake) in 1841

3. that, because it was in a jurisdictionally-confused "no-man's land" near a disputed (until 1841) boundary, became the refuge for all sorts of outlaws and near-lawless folk

4. was the northern "head of navigation" on Caddo Lake during the heyday of the cotton-shipping steamboat era (competitor to more-famous Jefferson, TX)

5. is the locus of several significant PREhistoric sites. (I'll be assessing and photographing the landowners' collections of artifacts.)

6. is a nexus of Indian trails -- some later used by Spanish and other immigrants -- as shown on numerous old maps

7. is right across the bayou/lake from "Timber Hill" -- the last major Caddo indian village in East Texas (where Viana -- see below -- almost started an American-Spanish war by cutting down and confiscating the American flag given to Caddo chief Dehahuit by Freeman)

8. may be the site where Captain Viana's Spanish army detachment camped ("near the Caddo Village") during his pursuit of President Jefferson's "Freeman-Custis Expedition" (southern counterpart to Louis & Clark) that was exploring (by boat) up the Red River. (We have found a cache of .69 cal military "Brown Bess" musket balls there...)

9. is the site of the early Masonic lodge where my wife's GGG-grandfather and Charles Ames (designer of our 1861 County Courthouse -- now beginning a full THC-funded restoration) were charter members

10. is almost certainly the site where my own "family's black sheep" GGG-Grandfather died "in some sort of horse-racing scrape down by Caddo Lake"... [GRIN]

I won't be able to do much "boonie-tromping" surveying, myself, but I'll put a sandal on my gout-plagued left foot and visit with the landowners to arrange permission for the crew to survey their properties. (The crew calls my activities, "showing the flag", because I wear my cap with the Texas Historical Commission badge and hand out my Texas Archeological Steward cards to authenticate us to the landowners... )
~~~~~~END PASTE~~~~~~

Ain't "retirement" great?!? {BIG GRIN]

Hope to return later to a lively discussion of this "professor's" editorial screed...

Enjoy!

[WVKayaker]

Nobody has ever been a YEC without being a Biblical literalist first.

Nobody has ever been a Christian without being a Biblical literalist first.

...although it is based on some pretty large assumptions.

Evolution is not science. It likes to play "dress up". It is ENTIRELY based on assumption. It is not based on FACT, but exotic speculation and leaps to conclusions are considered as gospel truths, to it's "true believers".

"...But most view any new fact which emerges as a challenge to their beliefs...

See above.

...There are many with religious faith who are evolutionists...

Mormons think they can become gods. Buddhists are good people, who love cows. Islamists are too busy blowing themselves up, hoping to get laid. Some people just sit around and ponder their navel. None of those attributes makes them correct in their beliefs. They are accepted by their faith, and teachings.

...It can take an opinion on anything, including science, and inform you that you must agree or you’re going to hell.

Typical wrong assumption again. You are going to Hell if you don't have faith in Jesus Christ... and on that you may choose to disagree.

I know in Whom, and what, I believe. He is God, who came to earth in a mortal body. He spent a few years among us, and was slain, laid out to die, and then was resurrected to regain His place again, as Ruler of All CREATION...

Believe it, or not!

[broncobilly]

Just WHERE in Evolutionary theory is the EARTH before the SUN or the STARS???

---

There are two evolutionary creation processes. The first involved the evolution from a condensing and collapsing nebulae to the solar system, thus creating the physical earth. Astrophysicists have studied that process extensively and simulated it with super computers. Once the physical earth was created God proceeded to create living creatures on the earth.
In the first evolutionary process, condensing and coagulating particles produced a proto earth and proto sun long before the the central proto sun became incandescent from heat and finally ignited into nuclear fission burning. Before that happened, from the earth, because of the density of the nebular cloud, one could not have seen the sun or the stars. Once the sun ignited. one could see light. Once the sun's solar winds blew away the inner planetary cloud, a person on earth could see clearly the source of the light, and once the earth rotated around, one could see the stars.
Genesis is written as what would have been seen from an observer on the earth.
I believe Moses was shown a vision of the creation processes (first the physical and then the biological) and just recorded what he saw in the vision. The description is extremely condense, but the sequence is right.

[JmyBryan]

No. Only that religious faith and scientific belief are two entirely different outlooks.

Science invites skepticism. I don’t have faith in any scientific explanation and none is required. I accept those explanations that seem reasonable at the time and am not troubled when those that are false or inadequate are overturned or modified.

Faith, however is not skeptical in any way. One can only know the grace of God individually. That knowledge cannot be demonstrated scientifically. The knowledge of God moving in one’s life has an immanent quality, not open to the scientific method.

The true knowledge of being saved by Christ is not reading the Bible, it is an enveloping experience that changes one’s mind in a profound manner that has nothing to do with how many animals may or may not have been on the ark.

[RegulatorCountry]

My God, how pathetic. But if you wish, I'll tell you tomorrow.

It's tomorrow, starlifter. Fess up, lol. You have no idea, you had no idea when you derided Christians for claiming that earth is the center of the universe, and you have no idea now. You bluff and bluster, and question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't recite your particular catechism by rote, though you, yourself do not know.

But, apparently you do have a god of some sort, since you're calling upon it. I'm guessing, what ... Hindu? Evos seem to be finding Hinduism appealing of late, due to a creation account that leaves a litte wiggle room for sacrosanct, a priori beliefs.

I look forward to your original and achingly intellectual reply.

[Dog Gone]

Evos seem to be finding Hinduism appealing of late

Do you have any evidence supporting that contention?

[CottShop]

[[Typical wrong assumption again. You are going to Hell if you don’t have faith in Jesus Christ...]]

What do you expect? Dog Gone is a typical apologist from the sorry state of Macroevolution. He has taken up Coyoteman’s position here on FR now that the coyote is gone- Seems hte only defense Macroevolution has left is to traipse out the devout who are willing to continue to constantly berate Creationists with false accusaitons- their motto is- ‘If said enough times, then it must be true’

I asked hte question before about the mate for Adam- IF God ‘evovled’ Eve, how long did Adam have to wait around till she finally was ‘human enough’ for him to mate with? WaS God lying to us all by telling us He ‘looked around’ the garden for a mate for Adam but found none? Did Adam have to wait billions of years for Eve to appear? That musta been one heck of a long nap- Noone from the Macroevo camp who claims to be Christian seems to want to address this question. Instead they simply accuse of of being.... get ready for it.... eeeeeek! ‘Literalists’ who apparently are too stupid to read God’s word and understand that there are indeed literal parts, while htere are ALSO allegorical parts.

Apparently hte only defense left for Macroevolution is ad hominem attacks on Christians, because EVERY thread I see posted in defense of Creation, the issues- themain topic is IGNORED while the devout Darwinists launch into never ending attacks on the messengers. Must be Macroevolution isn’t strong enough to stand on it’s own if htis is hte case

[[Typical wrong assumption again. You are going to Hell if you don’t have faith in Jesus Christ... and on that you may choose to disagree.]]

Soem calling htemselves ‘Christians’ but rejcting the very word of God as being both literal and allegorical, don’t know what to beleive- to htem, the whole bible is allegorical apparently- a subjective subject, to be fitted to their warped sense of self-righteousness which needs no Salvation other htan ‘good works’- to them ‘Christian’ is simply a label meant to inspire adoration from others.

[Dog Gone]

Nobody has ever been a Christian without being a Biblical literalist first.

Yes, I know that Biblical literalists are the only TRVE Christians.

Or so they say.

[Dog Gone]

I asked hte question before about the mate for Adam- IF God ‘evovled’ Eve, how long did Adam have to wait around till she finally was ‘human enough’ for him to mate with?

Thanks for the laugh.

[Alamo-Girl]

Wow! Retirement is great. Thank you so much for "taking us there" dear brother in Christ!

What an opportunity to combine your interests in science and family history!

And thank you for the ping to the thread! Please keep me in the loop.

[RegulatorCountry]

It is entirely possible that pigs will grow wings and fly

They'll have to flop around on increasingly malformed forelimbs for a couple million years, though. At what point these become protowings, I'm not at all sure, and am certainly baffled as to just how the pigs will know. But, know they certainly will, and they will find them quite sexy, to the exclusion of any other kind of pig, lol. I'd imagine they'll look like really, really fat bats. Really, really fat, pink bats, in fact. But, will they fly? Evolutionary faith says they will.

[RegulatorCountry]

Do you have any evidence supporting that contention?

I was set upon by two of them recently. Maybe MyTwoCopperCoins can provide further illumination. They've even got a cute little Wiki Hindu page, hijacked to support the ToE.

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

Hijacked?

LOL!

The sources were verifiable. The WiKi page was just a common arena for the other links, all of them provided at the bottom.

I don’t remember the thread that was posted on, but you might be able to find in your posting history. Too lazy to look it up, on a Saturday.

[Kansas58]

Well, actually, if you read this very thread, we do have some believers who fall for the “all or nothing” garbage.

[WVKayaker]

Nobody has ever been a Christian scientist without being a Biblical Darwin literalist first.

Yes, I know that Biblical Darwin literalists are the only TRVE Christians scientists.

Or so they say.

[P-Marlowe]

Just don’t stand underneath when they fly by.

[Kansas58]

“Day”

What does that word mean?

The truth is, it was not a 24 hour day until rather recently in history.

“Day” can be just about any unit of measure.

More over, if you understand Einstein's theories, at all, you understand that TIME, itself, is most likely an irrelevant concept to God.

To me, science helps me understand God.

Science does NOT contradict God.

Scripture was written by MEN, in large part, 99% of the time, God did NOT dictate, precisely, what was to be written down.

Strange that you literalists can attack the Catholic Pope due to the fact that you do not accept HIS authority, yet you can not bring yourself to believe that ancient scribes and monks MIGHT have made a few mistakes?

Every step of the way, every transcription, every translation of the Bible counted on HUMANS, and therefore it will contain some degree of human error.

“Do not put the Lord, your God, to the TEST”

To hold out that the Bible is a scientific journal is pure blasphemy. We are not to worship objects and the Bible is an object. The Bible should teach us how to live, and that is all it is intended to teach.

I have great sympathy for the “Intelligent Design” crowd, I have helped them get elected, I have recruited them to precinct posts -— mainly because we agree on so many other issues.

However, God is laughing at us all, over this silly debate.

We do not know, and humility demands that we admit we do not know, all the secrets of creation.