"Some evolutionists are atheists and reject the idea of a Creator, but many are Christians, including leaders of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches."
"Some" evolutionists are atheists? According to Discovery News, the National Academy of Science found that belief in God is as low as 5.5 percent among biologists, and as low as 7.5 percent among physicists and astronomers. These folks, obviously, must find a way to explain away the origin of life without bringing God into the equation. Clearly they will flit from hypothesis to hypothesis, untll one or another is disproved or doubted. Christians have the truth and should hold to it.
"No it isn't, not among real scientists."
::::Grin:::: "Real" scientists---meaning those who believe in evolution, I assume---the majority of whom are atheists. So, belief in God is okay, as long as you can find a way to fit it into atheistic dogma.
Nope.
"By definition of the word "Christian", all Christians believe in an Intelligent Designer -- of the Universe, of its physical laws, of Earth itself, and of all life that has ever appeared here. The scientific question is: what processes did God use to create everything we see? The scientific answer, in part, is "evolution". Christians and others who believe that God used evolution to create what we see are called "Theistic Evolutionists".
You're correct about the terminology, but a theistic evolutionist is the same as a straight homosexual. Regardless of how many popes or learned men identify themselves as such,the two are mutually exclusive. As I said before, evolution states man appeared recently, after millions of years of animals and other life-forms suffering, sickening, killing, bleeding, and dying. The Bible states that suffering, sickness, blood, and death entered the world at the start, after the fall of man. The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved.
Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, and again in Mark 10:6, that God made male and female at the beginning. Evolution, as stated above, demands one believe that humans evolved lately. The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved, and worse, Christians who say they are also evolutionists are, unwittingly (I hope), painting Jesus Christ as a liar.
There are other dangers inherent in theistic evolution.
We know that God is good, kind, loving, and perfect; theistic evolution misrepresents Him as a being who is the author of millions of years of suffering and death, by His own design.
We know that God is the Father and Maker of all things; theistic evolution reduces Him to a "God of the gaps", to whom credit is given only for those things man can't explain.
We know that we, as humans, are caught in sin, and the only way of redemption is through Jesus Christ. Evolution makes the original Fall, and the concept of sin meaningless----therefore there is no need for a Savior. Our very need for salvation is undermined.
The great majority of evolutionists regard Adam as a myth. Yet Jesus was a direct descendant of Adam. To accept the mythology of Adam puts one in danger of doing the same to Jesus and His redemptive work.
There are more, but it's abundantly clear that believing in evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. They contradict one another and cannot be resolved.
I'm certain you know as well as anyone that results from any poll highly depend on exactly how the questions are worded, their sequence, etc.
A lot of these polls are rigged to produce results the pollsters want.
Indeed, you expose your own game a bit with those weasel words "as low as" clearly hinting that by other measures "belief in God" could be higher.
This survey says 1/3 of scientists believe in God.
This survey says 1/2 of scientists believe in God.
This survey says 2/3 of scientists believe in God.
CofA: "Clearly they will flit from hypothesis to hypothesis, untll one or another is disproved or doubted.
Christians have the truth and should hold to it."
Has no one ever explained to you that science does not deal in "truth"?
"Truth" is a big word -- really, the biggest of all words.
"Truth" covers far more than physical facts and theories, and is mainly concerned with metaphysical ideas, ideals, ethics, religion, goals, beauty, etc.
Science, by definition of the word "science", knows nothing of metaphysics.
It is only concerned with what physical evidence tells us about the Universe as we see it.
Larger truths, such as mankind's fall from grace and redemption through Christ are simply beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
So, there is no such thing as a "scientific truth".
There are only scientific assumptions, confirmed data (facts), mathematical laws, hypotheses and theories.
Indeed, a first rule in science is: question everything.
And by definition of the word "science", scientists will never, ever, look for scientific answers in religious texts such as the Bible.
Sure, if it turns out that somehow science supports the Bible, or visa versa, that is always interesting to note.
But by definition, science must go wherever physical evidence leads it, regardless of any ancient text.
CofA: " 'Real' scientists---meaning those who believe in evolution, I assume---the majority of whom are atheists.
So, belief in God is okay, as long as you can find a way to fit it into atheistic dogma."
The definition of the word "scientist" is one who follows scientific principles (i.e., methodological naturalism) in his or her scientific work.
So, any alleged scientist whose work abandons those principles in favor of some religion-based doctrine is not a "real scientist" but only a poser.
Of course, in the realm of metaphysics, all scientists are as human as the rest of us, most believe in God and many practice their religion devoutly.
And so long as their religious beliefs do not skew their scientific work, they are still "real scientists".
CofA: "As I said before, evolution states man appeared recently, after millions of years of animals and other life-forms suffering, sickening, killing, bleeding, and dying.
The Bible states that suffering, sickness, blood, and death entered the world at the start, after the fall of man.
The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved."
As I read it, the whole Bible says no such thing -- one individual, Apostle Paul says, i.e.,
Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned..."
Now, since Paul is noted for speaking metaphorically, indeed metaphysically, one has to ask: precisely what does he mean, and what is the reality behind it?
Answer: doubtless Paul meant what he said, but neither his nor his readers' grasp on physical reality was grounded in science.
Nor was that necessary for them to understand the higher truths Paul pointed to.
And even today, those higher truths are unaffected by scientific discoveries.
Higher truths like sin and salvation don't depend on Apostle Paul's unique exegesis of Genesis, imho.
That's why any supposed "contradictions" with science don't need to be resolved.
CofA: "Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, and again in Mark 10:6, that God made male and female at the beginning.
Evolution, as stated above, demands one believe that humans evolved lately.
The two beliefs are a contradiction and cannot be resolved, and worse, Christians who say they are also evolutionists are, unwittingly (I hope), painting Jesus Christ as a liar."
First, the two verses are not actually identical.
In Matthew 19:4, Jesus merely asks:
Third, from a scientific perspective, God did create male and female from the beginning of life on earth.
Fourth, thinking logically, when exactly did "from the beginning" begin, and when did it end?
So, in what sense are we not still "in the beginning"?
Finally, anyone who believes in God must believe that God's plan for the Universe, including mankind, was there "from the beginning" -- that God in a sense created mankind in His plan even before the "big bang" (or whatever was the actual beginning).
Indeed, the Bible suggests, through use of words like "kinds" and "image" that what we see on earth was already present in God's realm before the beginning.
CofA: "There are other dangers inherent in theistic evolution.
We know that God is good, kind, loving, and perfect; theistic evolution misrepresents Him as a being who is the author of millions of years of suffering and death, by His own design."
First, words like "good, kind, loving, and perfect" are matters of perspective and understanding.
So a perfect God's self-understanding of just what is "perfect" might be somewhat more, uh, "complicated" than our own.
Second, there is no physical, scientific evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- suggesting ever a time in pre-history of the planet, without "millions of years of suffering and death."
Third, can you not imagine that, in God's own mind, our words "death" and "suffering" mean something different to God than they do in our minds?
Might physical "death" to God not seem less serious or permanent?
Might "life" itself only apply to human souls, not physical bodies?
And under such circumstances, might not our accusations against God for tolerating "suffering and death" seem a bit, well, uninformed?
CofA: "We know that God is the Father and Maker of all things; theistic evolution reduces Him to a "God of the gaps", to whom credit is given only for those things man can't explain."
I call that a false accusation.
Theologians might debate the nature of God, but I can't, not qualified.
However, it's pretty clear from the Bible and elsewhere that the Universe is not God, and God is not the Universe.
God is the Plan, Power and Intelligence behind and in the Universe.
God's physical laws rule the Universe, His energy the ultimate source (E=MC2) for everything we see.
So God is not just "of the gaps", but rather is the Lord of all scientific data, laws and theories.
At least that's how I see it.
CofA: "We know that we, as humans, are caught in sin, and the only way of redemption is through Jesus Christ.
Evolution makes the original Fall, and the concept of sin meaningless----therefore there is no need for a Savior.
Our very need for salvation is undermined."
Sin and salvation are metaphysical realities that cannot be addressed by science.
Sin is a function of our understanding of God, and of just how far we fall short of His glory.
As such, our "original Fall" entered the world only when humans began to understand God's requirements -- as recorded in Genesis.
So, "Our very need for salvation" is totally dependent on our belief in God, and is thus unrelated to the facts of evolution.
CofA: "The great majority of evolutionists regard Adam as a myth.
Yet Jesus was a direct descendant of Adam.
To accept the mythology of Adam puts one in danger of doing the same to Jesus and His redemptive work."
First, words like "history" and "myth" do not always mean what you might expect.
For example, histories are not always true, and myths not always false, especially when they point to higher truths about our human conditions.
And, I'll say it again, it's those higher truths which simply cannot be touched by any scientific discovery.
In the case of Adam's Fall, there's no historical proof either way, but the higher truth of it has been obvious to many for thousands of years.
As soon as we acknowledge God's supremacy, we become acutely aware of our own sinful "nakedness" and of our need for help in atonement.
So while precise details are irrelevant, the higher truth remains.
CofA: "There are more, but it's abundantly clear that believing in evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.
They contradict one another and cannot be resolved."
I humbly disagree.
Would also like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to respond to your thoughtful arguments.
I've much enjoyed the time spent here...
And thanks to all for your kind thoughts! :-)