Replies

Thank you for your reply!

Have you considered addressing the authors of the post which contains such inanities as: "People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons. As we will see later, one reason is so they can reject the Christian faith."?

Indeed. I considered it and did precisely that long ago on a theological thread where I challenged everyone to bring their theories of Scriptures and Origins to the table. (Freeper Views on Origins).

I reworked and posted the body article (my own musings) to my own webpage.

In the various doctrines of Christianity, there are some (as in the above article) who sincerely believe that if one does not embrace a certain doctrine then therefore he is in mortal spiritual error. If you think the flames get bad on evolution threads, you should see the religion threads. Jeepers!

To these I always mention that all of the apostles had different personalities, John was nothing like Peter, Paul or Thomas. If Christ wanted all of them to be of the same type, He certainly could have made it so. Likewise, the churches in Revelation are each quite different from one another but all accepted with certain commendations and rebukes.

Personally, I eschew the doctrine and traditions of men altogether whether Calvin, Arminius, the Pope, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham. My "doctrine" is described in this article

At the end of that article, I mention the following set of passages – the interpretation of which creates this great difficulty among Christians and between Young Earth Creationists and Evolutionists:

Personal interpretation of Scriptures and sadly, the reliance on the counsel of other men, leads to sincere contention among Christians. One such example is the origin of Adam, whose fall from grace is the need for Christ's propitiation. One side insists that Adam was the first mortal man, the other that he was the first man given a soul - either as fact or as metaphor:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. - Romans 5:12-14

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. - I Corinthians 15:42-48

A belief that Adam was the first mortal man leads to the conclusion of young earth creationism. A belief that he was the first soulful man is compatible with intelligent design and theistic evolution.

In either case, the understanding itself may become part of the Christian's worldview and, if so, it will constitute a firm boundary which cannot be broached by any non-Spiritual argument to the contrary. In the Christian man's worldview, a core belief is more important than mortal life.

That is the rub – under that particular doctrine, the interpretation that Adam was the first mortal man is Truth and therefore will be argued as if one’s life depends on it – because, in that doctrine, it does.

And Truth always trumps facts – so trying to argue with a Young Earth Creationist using science is a complete waste of time. Hence the thread I authored so long ago – it allowed everyone to get their competing theological views of origins on the table so that everyone could draw their own conclusions.

All (recent, and certaily on FR) objections to evolutionary theory have come from a small, essentially homogenous group with similar religious views. As the objections to science are religion-based, it is difficult to discuss things without religion being injected in the first couple of sentences (as in the posted article.)

Indeed. Perhaps it is time to do another theological thread on the subject of origins? If that is the consensus in y'alls response, I shall be glad to do it again unless someone else would like to give a go.

Truly, I wish that all the science minded posters would simply quit trying to reason with Young Earth Creationists – ignore them because the only possible result is indignation all around.

In sum, the YEC objection falls in the domain of theology and is best argued by the ministers, teachers, theologians who post here.