Starting this tread so my friends on the whatsapp groups can have at it!
Add your thoughts, scriptures etc. but play nice.
Add your thoughts, scriptures etc. but play nice.
General Evolution - Pro or Con?
- Thread starter Lori Jane
- Start date
Thanks for creating this.
I'll make a few comments.
First, if God exists (and God does exist) arguments for or against evolutionary theory can't touch God. It follows from this that atheism is not an inevitable consequence of the theory of evolution—accepting the theory of evolution need not lead to atheism. The arguments that one becomes an atheist if one accepts evolution doesn't persuade me, to begin with.
Second, the Bible (specifically the Genesis creation accounts) cannot, and should not, be used to argue for or against evolution of life on earth. To do so is to fail to recognize Genesis for what it is—a theological and not a scientific document. Many Hebrew scholars and Old Testament scholars agree that there's only one literally true statement in the Genesis creation account: “God created....” It is not the purpose of Genesis, or the Bible for that matter, to spell out the how or when or what of creation. (Imagine God explaining gravitation or relativity to ancient Israel
) So I conclude that if I choose to accept evolution as true, based on the available evidence from science, of course, I'm not violating the scriptures—whatever that means.
Third, I've been examining the theory of evolution from different sources. It's not such a crazy idea. Most people, I think, simply misunderstand it and misrepresent it. I understand why people oppose it. It's partly because atheists appeal to it to justify their atheism and nihilism. Here, though, social Darwinism is often the culprit. My point is that the theory, devoid of any philosophical/religious conclusions, is just that—a scientific theory. It's ambivalent. You decide what it would mean for your faith or lack of faith.
Finally, I'm not alone in affirming the theory of evolution as a Christian. I'm in good company. But is that a good reason to feel justified in my opinion? It is, to me, because it's only human to look around to see if anyone else is doing what you're doing. Confirmation bias? Yes. Again, I'm only human.
This evolution-creation debate has been my interest for a while now. I've read a number of books (mostly Christian/theological) arguing for evolution. I remember one: Why I Believe in Evolution, a collection of essays written by a number of evangelical Christians who realized they could accept valid scientific theories, especially evolution, without ceasing to be Christians. I mention this particular book because it set me off on a journey of discovery. Since then I've been reading books on the subject, and the more I learn, the more interesting it gets.
Here are some interesting titles:
1. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Does Not Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns
2. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 And the Human Origins Debate by John Walton & N. T. Wright
3. The Great Partnership: Science, Religion and the Search for Meaning by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
4. The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion by Hans Küng
I'll make a few comments.
First, if God exists (and God does exist) arguments for or against evolutionary theory can't touch God. It follows from this that atheism is not an inevitable consequence of the theory of evolution—accepting the theory of evolution need not lead to atheism. The arguments that one becomes an atheist if one accepts evolution doesn't persuade me, to begin with.
Second, the Bible (specifically the Genesis creation accounts) cannot, and should not, be used to argue for or against evolution of life on earth. To do so is to fail to recognize Genesis for what it is—a theological and not a scientific document. Many Hebrew scholars and Old Testament scholars agree that there's only one literally true statement in the Genesis creation account: “God created....” It is not the purpose of Genesis, or the Bible for that matter, to spell out the how or when or what of creation. (Imagine God explaining gravitation or relativity to ancient Israel
) So I conclude that if I choose to accept evolution as true, based on the available evidence from science, of course, I'm not violating the scriptures—whatever that means. Third, I've been examining the theory of evolution from different sources. It's not such a crazy idea. Most people, I think, simply misunderstand it and misrepresent it. I understand why people oppose it. It's partly because atheists appeal to it to justify their atheism and nihilism. Here, though, social Darwinism is often the culprit. My point is that the theory, devoid of any philosophical/religious conclusions, is just that—a scientific theory. It's ambivalent. You decide what it would mean for your faith or lack of faith.
Finally, I'm not alone in affirming the theory of evolution as a Christian. I'm in good company. But is that a good reason to feel justified in my opinion? It is, to me, because it's only human to look around to see if anyone else is doing what you're doing. Confirmation bias? Yes. Again, I'm only human.
This evolution-creation debate has been my interest for a while now. I've read a number of books (mostly Christian/theological) arguing for evolution. I remember one: Why I Believe in Evolution, a collection of essays written by a number of evangelical Christians who realized they could accept valid scientific theories, especially evolution, without ceasing to be Christians. I mention this particular book because it set me off on a journey of discovery. Since then I've been reading books on the subject, and the more I learn, the more interesting it gets.
Here are some interesting titles:
1. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Does Not Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns
2. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 And the Human Origins Debate by John Walton & N. T. Wright
3. The Great Partnership: Science, Religion and the Search for Meaning by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
4. The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion by Hans Küng
I believe evolution is bunk.
The deep and the waters existed prior to the God creating light.
The earth was all jacked up, formless, etc., until the God made the land appear and He gathered the waters, called seas.
I won't rule out the Gap Theory. If it can be proven, it would explain why the earth is supposedly 4.5 billion years old. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old? I have no idea and whoever came up with that age can't prove it.
I didn't evolve from no sludge, worm, fish, monkey, hippo, etc.
If someone wants to believe they evolved from an amoeba, well, they can fun with that.
The deep and the waters existed prior to the God creating light.
The earth was all jacked up, formless, etc., until the God made the land appear and He gathered the waters, called seas.
I won't rule out the Gap Theory. If it can be proven, it would explain why the earth is supposedly 4.5 billion years old. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old? I have no idea and whoever came up with that age can't prove it.
I didn't evolve from no sludge, worm, fish, monkey, hippo, etc.
If someone wants to believe they evolved from an amoeba, well, they can fun with that.
Actually, Genesis can't support the weight you're putting on it. This isn't controversial; it's common knowledge in contemporary scholarship on the Bible. Even very conservative scholars who believe in biblical inerrancy of one sort or another acknowledge that Genesis uses mythological/metaphorical/poetic language to talk about God, the world and our place in it. It's not meant to be read literally. In fact, Genesis hasn't always been read literally. Ancient Christian interpreters recognized the metaphorical nature of Genesis. Augustine and Origen realized this. They're confirmed by modern literacy criticism of the Bible and, of course, by science. (See John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate and The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 And The Human Origins Debate for evidence)I believe evolution is bunk.
The deep and the waters existed prior to the God creating light.
The earth was all jacked up, formless, etc., until the God made the land appear and He gathered the waters, called seas.
I won't rule out the Gap Theory. If it can be proven, it would explain why the earth is supposedly 4.5 billion years old. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old? I have no idea and whoever came up with that age can't prove it.
I didn't evolve from no sludge, worm, fish, monkey, hippo, etc.
If someone wants to believe they evolved from an amoeba, well, they can fun with that.
As for the age of the earth, there's abundance of evidence for its being millions of years old. It's not quite right to say that it can't be proven.
That's your opinion. If the earth is millions or billions of years old, then I'm going to lean on the Gap Theory vs. the Theory of Evolution. To each their own.
Often we are swayed by what we hear most as the more accepted & less ridiculed view without ever looking into it for ourselves at all (which I think on this issue is okay. Not dangerous spiritually I mean). But for those who do look, the evidence is the same for everyone. What decides is our starting point. If you view the evidence with the Bible as your starting point & basis for truth, everything geological & archaeological finding fits. And fits neatly. If you start with the concept of evolution as true, all the evidence can still be made to fit.
But, which one glorifies God & builds trust in him, his word & the future for us all. Which one we choose reflects ourselves. We might find we feel more comfortable & respectful of fellow brothers that share our choice & opinion. But creation (young earth, old earth) or evolution (slow or gap theory), neither separate us from God.
Out of interest I was gap theory evolutionist for about 24 years. Then I met casually a woman I knew was highly intelligent & sharp minded who had a creationist magazine sticking out of her bag. I learned she believed in 6 literal days of young creation. I found that staggering & felt embarrassed for her. But a few passing remarks she made peaked my interest & I treated myself to a subscription of the magazine & another like it. I then became familiar with a few websites & read a some of books,... And within a month I was fully on board with young earth creation.
It doesn't trouble me if my brothers around the world ever differ on how we got here & when. My thoughts on creation/evolution have raised my faith & joy in God, yes. But only Jesus ever matters. The answer to ever puzzle or concern is always & only him
But, which one glorifies God & builds trust in him, his word & the future for us all. Which one we choose reflects ourselves. We might find we feel more comfortable & respectful of fellow brothers that share our choice & opinion. But creation (young earth, old earth) or evolution (slow or gap theory), neither separate us from God.
Out of interest I was gap theory evolutionist for about 24 years. Then I met casually a woman I knew was highly intelligent & sharp minded who had a creationist magazine sticking out of her bag. I learned she believed in 6 literal days of young creation. I found that staggering & felt embarrassed for her. But a few passing remarks she made peaked my interest & I treated myself to a subscription of the magazine & another like it. I then became familiar with a few websites & read a some of books,... And within a month I was fully on board with young earth creation.
It doesn't trouble me if my brothers around the world ever differ on how we got here & when. My thoughts on creation/evolution have raised my faith & joy in God, yes. But only Jesus ever matters. The answer to ever puzzle or concern is always & only him
Last edited:
One of the dilemmas Christians face is that if you believe the account of the flood, then you also believe in a very aggressive form of evolution or adaption by species. There are over 260 species of monkey alone, 38 species of cat, 3 species of wolf but nearly 40 subspecies. Since it has been proven mathematically that for Noah to house all the creatures of todays planet earth on the ark, based on the arks measurements in the Bible, would have required many more arks than just one, it means that all the species we have today evolved in just roughly 4300 years . This timeframe is so far removed from the theory of evolution, which deals with millennia, so as to be inconceivable.
Another misconception re science is that when the word 'theory' is used as in the 'theory of evolution' or any other scientific theory, it is only put forward as such after it has been proven. To a scientist its not a 'theory' as in a possibility, or option, or waiting to be confirmed.
Another misconception re science is that when the word 'theory' is used as in the 'theory of evolution' or any other scientific theory, it is only put forward as such after it has been proven. To a scientist its not a 'theory' as in a possibility, or option, or waiting to be confirmed.
I "believe the account of the flood" [ie, trust the Bible on this; trust God on this], yet experience no 'dilemma'.
You're presuming (if I've understood you correctly) that all species that exist today would all have had to have been on the ark at the time of the flood. I disagree that that would be necessary to explain all the life we see today.
The Bible speaks of 'kinds' & a lot of scientific research has gone into just what that would have meant genetically & practically at the time of the flood.
What comes after the flood, where all representative kinds were kept safe on the ark, is not evolution (the appearance of new genetic material) but natural selection; the loss of genetic material through adaption [Eg: muscular dogs with thick fur survive in cold climates; slender fine fur dogs survive to breed again in hot climates etc].
It is so easy & of course natural for vast numbers of 'species' thread to separate quickly after the flood.
The greatest evidence for global flooding is global patterns of fossilisation, which require rapid burial to fossilisation to occur.
Here are a few links that explain things better than I ever could:
The Flood
Geology overwhelmingly supports the historicity of the global Flood. Sediments were rapidly deposited, forming most of the fossil-bearing rock layers.
answersingenesis.org
These two magazines might be of interest to anyone wanting to further consider a young earth or literal global:
The Answers Magazines https://answersingenesis.org/answers/magazine/
&
The Answers Research Journal https://answersresearchjournal.org/
Yes thanks for that Jewel. I guess when I say 'dilemma' I refer not to a dilemma of faith as in whether or not the flood happened but more a dilemma of how to understand the rapid proliferation of species after the flood into what we have today.
To my knowledge, even 'adaption of species through natural selection' in such a short time is not supported by evolutionists, but I could be wrong. I would need to dig up some sources again.
If such a rapid adaption through natural selection is the case since the flood across all species, there surely would be fossil evidence to support that, as the time frame of a few thousand years is miniscule compared to the timeframes evolutionists speak of, from which fossil evidence has been found.
Don't get me wrong - I believe in the flood, and the Bible is sound when it refers to 'kinds', but the sheer volume of species within the various genera of species and families within them, is truly staggering.
I just sometimes wish the Bible explained the nitty gritty more. So the dilemma for me is more a case of understanding how it all fits together, not whether my faith is shaken. I will check out your links and revert asap.
To my knowledge, even 'adaption of species through natural selection' in such a short time is not supported by evolutionists, but I could be wrong. I would need to dig up some sources again.
If such a rapid adaption through natural selection is the case since the flood across all species, there surely would be fossil evidence to support that, as the time frame of a few thousand years is miniscule compared to the timeframes evolutionists speak of, from which fossil evidence has been found.
Don't get me wrong - I believe in the flood, and the Bible is sound when it refers to 'kinds', but the sheer volume of species within the various genera of species and families within them, is truly staggering.
I just sometimes wish the Bible explained the nitty gritty more. So the dilemma for me is more a case of understanding how it all fits together, not whether my faith is shaken. I will check out your links and revert asap.
Thankyou for clarifying.
I think "not supported by evolutionists" is the crux of the problem. Unsurprisingly evolutionary scientists don't intellectually tolerated a rapid proliferation of species. That would wholly undermine the idea millions of years. Evolutionary scientists would reasonably look for another explanation.
But, from what I've read (which was considerable but a good few ago now), the rapid appearance of 'new' species would be perfectly natural (there can be well into double figures & even 3 figure generations within just a year).
It comes down to the worldview, the bias, we begin with. The evidence is the same for scientists & archaeologists etc. on either side of the issue. How they test & interpret evidence will be influenced by their worldview.
I didn't really care what the explanation was for how we got here or whether the flood was global or local. My curiosity grew after a brief meeting with someone one day. Seeing the evidence in favour of God's word as written was a jaw dropping experience. Take a look too if you get chance.
But as I said before, this is a belief issue & not a salvation one. We need to trust what/WHO is to come,, & not risk that if dwelling on what went before would undermine it - undermine Him.
Nice to chat.
Likewise and thanks. I did not know that about species. I take your point about trusting 'what is to come and undermining Him'. Sadly my JW conditioning will require some dismantling before I get to that point again. Baby steps...
I will peruse your links and offer comment at some stage.
All the best.
