Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Controversy Reignites Among Evangelical Christians
PR News Wire ^ | June 21, 2011 | N/A

Posted on 07/04/2011 10:00:42 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby

The debate among evangelical Christians over Darwin's theory of evolution has returned to front stage this summer with the publication of two separate cover stories on the issue by leading Christian magazines.

In its June cover story, Christianity Today reported on how Christian proponents of Darwin are challenging historic beliefs about Adam and Eve.

Now Christian news magazine World has announced that it will name two books critiquing "theistic evolution" as its "Books of the Year" in its upcoming July 2 issue. World called the evolution debate in churches and religious colleges "the biggest current battle both among Christians and between Christian and anti-Christian thought."

One of the two books honored by World is God and Evolution: Protestants, Catholics, and Jews Explore Darwin's Challenge to Faith (Discovery Institute Press, 2010).

The book's editor, Dr. Jay Richards, commented, "We wanted to clear away the fog and fuzzy-thinking on this issue. Our book makes clear that to the degree theistic evolution is theistic, it will not be fully Darwinian. And to the degree that it is Darwinian, it will fail fully to preserve traditional theism."

God and Evolution features essays by Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars critical of the growing effort by advocates of theistic evolution such as Francis Collins to persuade leaders of the faith community to change their theology without hearing from scientists who are skeptical of the claims of unguided Darwinian evolution.

"Over the past couple of years, Collins has convened large closed-door meetings of evangelical Christian leaders to convince them to embrace theistic evolution," said Dr. John West, who wrote the first two chapters of God and Evolution.

"These gatherings intentionally excluded any scientists who were critical of Darwin's theory of unguided evolution. Collins has said that he wants to foster dialogue on this issue, but excluding scholars who dissent from Darwin from the conversation is a recipe for monologue, not dialogue."

For more information visit www.faithandevolution.org

SOURCE Discovery Institute


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creationism; darwin; evolution; theisticevolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 next last
To: Iscool

Seems like you have already read Starlight and Time.


121 posted on 07/08/2011 4:54:45 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Apparently the face of the deep at the time was between the earth and the water...There was no Heaven at the time...

So where did God hang out? At the local TGIFridays?

122 posted on 07/08/2011 4:54:48 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Sorry. I thought you were quoting directly from the book and the mistake was the author’s, not yours.

I didn’t mean to criticize you over a typo.

Again, sorry.


123 posted on 07/08/2011 4:56:50 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Your fancy way of saying none of the clocks agree nor are entirely accurate is still disingenous.

None of your preferred clocks are even in the same ballpark as the 101 in my link. Furthermore Mt. St. Helens showed hod badly your clock can be wrong w the blind radioactive dating that was performed after the 1980 eruption there.


124 posted on 07/08/2011 4:59:06 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Even better, I actually understand Scripture. I realizes that that puts you at a significant disadvantage, however I will attempt to debate you in words of one syllable or less in order to more level the field.

Debate away...

125 posted on 07/08/2011 4:59:15 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
"but true science agrees w/ God’s word.""

However, when you have an interpretation of either Scripture or science in which they don't agree it isn't either that is wrong, it is you.

126 posted on 07/08/2011 4:59:22 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

hod = how


127 posted on 07/08/2011 4:59:48 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Problem is you seem to want to trust science as much or more than the Bible.

As for me I choose to trust the Bible first and foremost esp. when it contradicts science.

And I do not have a problem w/ being wrong nor learning from my mistakes. Lack of mistakes shows lack of effort.


128 posted on 07/08/2011 5:03:36 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Seems like you have already read Starlight and Time.

No I haven't...But perhaps I've come across people who have

I do enjoy getting with other people to find out what they learned and to see how it lines up with scripture...

129 posted on 07/08/2011 5:07:46 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

these threads show up just in time to discredit conservatives.


130 posted on 07/08/2011 5:10:33 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Your fancy way of saying none of the clocks agree nor are entirely accurate is still disingenous."

Its not fancy at all, it's simple metrology (the science of measuring utilizing actual math and science). You are comparing a number of measuring systems which obviously do not correlate to your presumed reference without establishing how or what your reference is and how and why it is right and other systems wrong.

Try the scientific process (you won't go to hell for doing it) in which you analyze the data BEFORE you form your hypothesis, not form your hypothesis first and then collect data to support it.

131 posted on 07/08/2011 5:11:36 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
So where did God hang out? At the local TGIFridays?

Are the poor attempts at humor a substitution for your lack of ability to discuss scripture???

132 posted on 07/08/2011 5:12:07 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Oh so if you don't see my work then you can just presume tis my error not thine?

We can stop anytime b/c our conversations too often devolve into the same minutia...

133 posted on 07/08/2011 5:18:26 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
"Problem is you seem to want to trust science as much or more than the Bible."

I trust the truth because God is the author of all truth, He cannot lie. I sometimes look th the real world for evidence to support and explain God's truth, never to refure it.

Do you trust God so little that you would bury your head in the sand for fear of "outing" Him?

134 posted on 07/08/2011 5:20:38 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

I know many of you never knew this but I started out believing the long ages evolution crap decades ago.

What is the easiest way to be brainwashed? Just look to the Democrat and liberal leaders/experts - all you have to do is hear or listen to only one side of the story

over and

over and

over...


135 posted on 07/08/2011 5:23:41 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
"We can stop anytime b/c our conversations too often devolve into the same minutia..."

Really? You want to have a discussion of science and want to leave out the minutia? Really? Isn't that just another way of saying "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up"?

Scientifically, if you want to run with the big dogs you have to bring your minutia or stay on the porch.

136 posted on 07/08/2011 5:29:59 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

How utterly disingenuous yet again ~ where did you bring anything to back up your rather vague contentions?


137 posted on 07/08/2011 5:32:18 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

> It became without form and void.

Your word, not God’s.


138 posted on 07/08/2011 5:46:10 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Debate away...

I've been attempting to, but your ripostes have been with a rubber pole and not with the sword of God. Every time that I think that you have bested yourself, you keep coming with greater departures from the word of God. I must admit a sneaking admiration for somebody who consistently and increasingly promotes non Christian theology and still calls themselves Christian, while running down the true Christians as defined by Christ and Nicea.

139 posted on 07/08/2011 5:53:22 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook; CynicalBear
It became without form and void.

Your word, not God’s.


This is an old, old way of trying to sneak in some undefined period of time within which, with varying degrees of hand-waving, anything could be made to happen so that anything necessary to "harmonize" one description of creation with any type of naturalistic depiction of creation could be obtained.

What the proponents of this misreading seem unable to appreciate is that if everything became without form and turned into a void, that is, emptiness, then there was, by definition, nothing at all about the previous world, as posited, that could persist into the recreated world to be mistaken for something else. "Without form and void" necessarily resets everything to zero as far as anything definable goes.
140 posted on 07/08/2011 5:55:11 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson