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
Nonetheless others can and have. Evolution has been entirely disproved at this point; all it has going for it is the inertia of the big lie which Hitler described. The fruit fly experiments of the first few decades of the past century were a coercive disproof, if macroevolution were possible at all it would have been seen.
Fruit flies breed new generations every other DAY, so that running that sort of experiment for two or three decades involves more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of monkeys, apes, hominids, or humans on this planet. They subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and then combined the resulting mutants every possible way; all they ever got was fruit flies, sterile freaks, and freaks which returned to the norm for a fruit fly after two or three generations.
Those experiments were meant to prove macroevolution and they disproved it. The failure was so garish and unambiguous that several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at the time. The failure resulted because our entire living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in that picture was that for a fruit fly. When the nature of the DNA/RNA information system was discovered in the 1960s, by all rights, evolution should have been abandoned by the entire world. At that point the reason for the fruit fly experiment failures was basically known.
Isn’t mutation almost always a bad thing? Nevertheless, some people will no doubt say fruit flies prove nothing. As a layman, I don’t know enough about genetics, DNA, mutation, etc., to prove or disprove them. I think the vast majority are in the same boat. We only know what the experts in a particular field tell us. I’d rather not fight over things I cannot prove one way or the other. I’m even that way about Christianity. I try to understand the Word and live my life according to it, but when it comes to others believing (or not believing) the same things, I present my point of view. If they are not receptive, I’m not going to browbeat them over it.
Most excellent question, thank you.
The Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross for the sins of folks like you and me. This is the fundamental of Christianity and all orthodox Christians believe it.
The Lord Jesus Christ had to die for our sins, but the question comes up - Where did sin come from?
The Apostle Paul sums it up well "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." Romans 5:12 . So Paul says that One man brought sin upon the whole world and the human race. So who was that Man?
Looking further in Romans 5 we find the answer "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" Romans 5:14. From this we see that it was ADAMS transgression that brought sin and death upon the world.
If it was Adam, where can we read this and what happened? Well the Bible answers that in Genesis.
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16,17:. Here God commanded Adam, that HE COULD EAT anything from the garden EXCEPT FROM THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. If he did then the penalty was stated "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
What happened? Well the short version is "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:6
Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and they died Spiritually that Day and according to the Apostle Paul, the effects of that caused Sin and Death upon the WHOLE HUMAN RACE (Romans 5:12).
But Blessed be God who planned a Savior foreshadowed from the beginning in Genesis 3:15 "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Who is "thee", it is the Enemy who deceived Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. Who is "her seed"? That is Mary's seed (from the Virgins womb) - The Lord Jesus Christ. And what is "bruise his heel"? That is the Lord Jesus Christ's dead on the cross and his resurrection. And what is "bruise thy head"? It is the Enemies demise.
What exactly does Christianity have to do with Adam & Eve?
Great question. The answer is Everything.
I can see your point. It is not unfeasible for there to be both an evolution of mankind and a literal Adam and Eve.
this has been gone over before...it’s our diet primarily.
Evolosers love to talk about "beneficial mutations" but the examples they provide always involve claims that something like sickle cell anemia is a "beneficial mutation" because it reduces the lucky victim's susceptibility to malaria. All such supposed beneficial mutations involve loss of genetic information and not gain and all of the known mutations amongst humans have names, like Down syndrome, cri-du-chat syndrome, cystic fibrosis etc. etc.
In real life I could just as easily save somebody from malaria by shooting them through the head with a 44, which would be a bit quicker than sickle cell and in fact if you think about it, you've probably never seen any sort of a movie where some beautiful African girl runs up to Tarzan or George of the Jungle screaming "Bwana, SAVE ME!! them ole malaria germs are AFTER me and I need you to shoot me through the head with that 375 H&H you're carryin so they don't get me!!!"
Didn't see that coming ...
And it is micro-evolution or changes within a kind.
Eventually it becomes obvious that life can NOT re-program itself rather that all changes were designed in each kinds living DNA for adaptation.
Evolution presupposes the changing of form. That perhaps something that is not a bird produces, over time, a bird., That a non-dog will change into a dog; and ultimately, that a human was produced from soemthing that was NOT human.
Creation says that humans were created as such, humans. While humans may chage, or adapt if you will, by skin color, hair texture, height, etc, in the end, we are a human.
Let me get this straight. You are saying that what God instructed some of the writers of scripture to write was unimportant? Are you saying that parts of scripture are irrelevant to us today?
“You can use forty different phrases, but they all equal some type of evolution underway. “
It’s undeniable that people at least around here are taller than they used to be.
I have read also that the people of North Korea are getting much smaller.
It has to do with nutrition, not evolution.
We remain the same species (homo sapiens). We aren’t changing into another species.
Evolution, properly called, requires the mutation of certain species in a beneficial way , adding information to the genetic code, that ultimately creates a new species. Birds become fish, or what have you. Variation among a species is not evolution.
You are correct in that God is outside of time, but He is also outside of our limited understanding. It seems that you are assuming that God had to allow this planet to mature over billions of years, when really He could have created a fully mature earth that only appears to be very old.
We simply don’t know exactly when God made the universe, but the context of Genesis supports the literal 24 hour day interpretation.
You also are getting hung up on King James English, when it’s clear the meaning of that passage is that death would result in disobedience. Other translations make it clear that the curse of death would not happen on the very same day.
The Bible was never intended to be a scientific journal or a perfect, all inclusive account of history.
In fact, the Bible, itself, was never even envisioned by any of the various authors of the various Books of the Bible.
Why do some Christians feel it is insulting and blasphemous to think we “came from monkeys” but they think it is OK to believe we came from dust?
What is dust?
House dust is from dust mite dung.
“Humus” is nutrient rich soil, formed from decayed animal or vegetable matter.
Why is it alright, and not at all insulting, to think that God made Adam, literally, from DECAYED animals, but somehow blasphemous to think that God made Adam from a long process of evolution?
Either way, the point is that humans were made from the biological material of other living things -— even for the most Fundamental Creationists out there!
How do you suggest God explain DNA and microscopic cells and other complicated subjects to the illiterate masses thousands of years ago, when Genesis was written?
This entire argument is absurd.
God does have a sense of humor, and He is, no doubt, laughing at those of us who waste so much time on this non-issue.
Again, the radicals on both sides are wrong.
You can be a true Christian and still believe that Evolution was part of God's plan.
So if you can't believe Genesis 1-11 is true, if you can't believe that the Ten Commandments are true, if you can't believe our LORD's ancestry is true, if you say that Peter lied about the Flood, if you say that Jesus Christ lied concerning origins and the flood, if you claim that death preceded sin and thus reject the doctrines of Redemption and Grace and therefore the Gospel...
How exactly can you claim that an Evolutionist can be a "true Christian"?/p>
No, according to the Scriptures Adam lived 930 years. He and the human race died Spiritually that day. For further proof see Psalm 14 and 53: 2,3 and Romans 3:11-18. And through the same testimony, Adam named the animals before eating the fruit.
Also in Genesis is the First Recorded piece of human speech: Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Not bad for the first man at that point.
>Open your eyes look up, and see the starlight from billions of years ago, and believe God created it, and he isn't trying to fool us into believing in an old universe. You are very close, the first thing created was "light".
If God exists outside of time, how long does the tiniest, smallest instant of His "time" appear to be to us?
“The Bible was never intended to be a scientific journal”
True, but it not a lie, either.
The Bible states clearly that God created the entire universe and all it contains in six days, and all very good. While no mathematical or scientific calculations are presented, the truth is presented.
To deny this is to deny that the Bible is true.
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.