Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

You mean Christ didn't really die?

Yes, there are some Christians who believe in evolution or can't decide, but it is also true that evolution has claimed many casualties among Christians, at least to the extent of causing them to compromise their trust in the Bible -- which is no small thing. There may be some, or many, who have avoided this, as you have, but the fact is that it has wreaked quite a bit of damage among believers -- and I do mean believers, true believers. It has also caused many to lose their faith altogether, and I guess we could argue at some length about whether they had true faith or not to begin with, but I think some may yet come back to the fold.I think it's just plain obvious that the ToE is false from a number of angles, which I've tried to argue, and I think it's important to continue to try to refine the arguments because of the damage this false worldview has done to the people of God. But I understand that not everybody is going to be attracted to this pursuit.Robin's arguments usually strike me as remarkably perceptive. He understands that evolution and true Christianity are logically incompatible, and he's right. He understands the implications of the Fall versus the world defined by evolution, nature red in tooth and claw and all that. What's even more remarkable to my mind is how hard it is for others to get what he's saying.I don't know if anyone will ever be saved through creationist arguments, but I do know that the ToE is a serious work of the Adversary against God and the effort seems well worth it to me.2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God...Speaking of noncarnal methods, I've started praying for the collapse of this stronghold. Prayer is worth a million arguments.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

has mostly to do with all the science that is done in its name. Real science is done despite the faulty assumptions it rests on. Also, proving the theory false is very hard since it rests on so much elaborate interwoven speculative scaffolding by now with so much embedded scientific data it appears to be inextricable (though much of it really fits creationism better). In the early days the ToE would have seemed a lot more reasonable than some of the ideas about the flood they had then, which were pretty nutty, and that no doubt attracted many.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

1) The clear logical apprehension that evolution and the Bible cannot both be true. The illogical thing is trying to hold onto both.2) The illusion of scientific rationality behind the ToE. It is only an illusion but it is very compelling. My last post -- Message 135 -- says more about this.3) Science has glamor, respect, authority.4) People don't like being ridiculed so they try to align with what seems most defensible.5) The science involved is very complex. Most of us aren't equal to it. Most people are persuaded to evolution on the basis of the flimsiest grasp of the facts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do not treat it as a science text, because it does not present itself as a science text, but I treat it as the truth and it does say things that are not compatible with the ToE. And I treat it as history where it presents itself as history (no, not the way fiction "presents itself as history") which includes Genesis. All other ways of reading it require mental gymnastics that distort the text.

Well I believe much has been said by many creationists that does in fact demonstrate that the ToE is in fact illusion. But I've been astonished to see how people have trouble following the arguments.It only "works" because of the hold on certain unsupported assumptions (the catchall explanation that mutation accounts for all the variation we see in life for instance) that are hard to relinquish even for the purpose of thinking through something.

Yes, this is natural and understandable. The problem is that the ToE outright contradicts essential parts of God's revelation, and to simply accept it in this way creates an internal state of contradiction in a believer, which has to give one way or the other.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the Bible does not contradict Galileo's discoveries about the heavens. As I understand it, the Roman church was infatuated with Aristotle through Aquinas in those days, and had read Aristotle's pagan cosmology into the Bible, where it does not fit. But whatever the reason for the flap with Galileo, his science never did contradict the Bible. This is not true of the ToE. On what ground do you determine that a reading is "over-literal?" Many unfortunately determine it on the psychological nonrational ground that they are persuaded to the ToE, not on any ground having to do with an intelligent reading of the text itself. I have little respect for "those who can do both," perhaps pity but not respect, because to do both means you don't clearly grasp one or the other. The contradiction is patent to anyone who has a minimal grasp of both and doesn't compromise or distort known facts.

It doesn't take any cerebral exercise at all to recognize the Bible is God's own revelation -- it takes only a flash of understanding that it is so based on a recognition of the power of God.

I don't see how anything I've said contradicts this. It is compelling, it has authority, it appears to deal with the data. Well, I have read a lot of the history of evolution. It's quite possible for people to be honestly persuaded to a plausible but irrational theory by many means. One I suggested above is that the alternative theories in the beginning left a lot to be desired, making the ToE attractive. And people who are not committed to the Biblical revelation have no motivation to further investigate some areas of cognitive dissonance if their interests don't lie in that particular direction.

Nothing in the natural world contradicts the written revelation. Only the man-made ToE contradicts it.

Many naturalists were Christians inspired by God's creation. It is very possible science wouldn't have happened at all in the West without them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is the most direct conclusion that can be drawn from the genealogies and other time indicators in the text. It requires no rationalizations or distorted interpretations. Well, geology and physics are the product of HUMAN INTELLECT, Q. I understand that you don't believe the Bible is inspired by God, but to one who does, there is no way anything that contradicts it can be said to "tell" us anything that is to be trusted. Geology and physics can't trump God. That's that. We accept what they say that doesn't contradict His word and there's lots of that. I already spelled out the conflict, Q, your statement doesn't say anything new. Some do lose their faith in favor of mere human intellect. BAD move. Those who maintain an agnostic stance concerning how to resolve the conflict may be in OK shape spiritually, but those who go with science over God's revelation are making a bad mistake. It IS a very narrow viewpoint. NARROW IS THE WAY AND STRAIT IS THE GATE, said Jesus. It COSTS to be a disciple of Christ. Costs putting up with the ridicule of those who choose science over the Bible for one thing. These things are not judged by human intellect, Q. If you know the Bible comes from God, there is simply no option. Narrow, schmarrow. Yes, that is the point of view of human intellect. The believer has another source of knowledge.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not the conclusion I come to as I've many times explained to deaf ears. Neither liars nor morons. The scientists who worked within now-discredited scientific paradigms in the past were far from morons or liars. I figure the ToE has a lot of charisma going for it, and 99.99% of scientists don't take on the theory itself or work on the cutting edge of it, but simply work within it, taking it for granted, accepting the various ways it is justified, casting their work in its terms. Taking a LOT for granted, MANY assumptions. Where would they get the motivation from to challenge it anyway? There are psychological reasons as well for sticking with it. Someday the ToE will collapse and then everybody will have a good hard look at what was really holding it together, but until then there's no fault in accepting it as is.

Point was that geology and physics are human-originated works. The creation of God is barely scratched by them. Well, geology and physics are not the works of God. Those are works of men.The creation is also mute, anglagard, at least to us fallen human beings who are spiritually blind to its message about the Creator. How long did it take humanity anyway to get to the point of understanding anything at all about how it operates? Really, this idea that the creation just "talks" to us about itself makes no sense.And do you see the Creator in it? Do you detect His character from it? Does it jibe with what He says about Himself in His written word? Does it teach you about our sin nature, about the disobedience of our first parents?God speaks to us through the Word. The Word is unique to Him and to human beings as made in His image. Animals don't speak words. We understand through words, we don't grasp a whole lot if we're just left to wander in the physical universe, especially since we're fallen and blind to the glory of God it reveals to someone who really does know how to read it. And we'd grasp nothing at all if left to do so without words. God SPOKE the universe into existence. The medium of language is essential to any kind of knowledge. Yes, very humble of you. If you could really read the creation you would learn about the same God who inspired the Bible. God made us to understand, to communicate, with words. Scripture is clear that what creation does say to those who are tuned in, is that the God who made it is very great indeed, and it is God who should be the focus of our learning from the creation, and loved and worshipped for it, not the creation itself. But because we are blind to what the creation says about Him, in His mercy He chose to communicate with us via the clear medium of language, in the book He personally inspired.