A BIBLICAL defense of evolution

This thread is not about the scientific evidence for evolution. That can be left for the numerous other threads that address that issue.I am arguing that the Bible, even a quite literal reading of it, allows Bible believers to consider the evidences for evolution and adopt a belief in evolution should the scientific evidence be for it.Psalm 19 says:

quote:

---

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork. Day after day utters speech, and night after night shows knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their rule has gone throughout the earth and their words to the end of the world.

---

Romans 1 adds:

quote:

---

That which may be know of God is manifest in them [people], for God has showed it to them. For the invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Divinity, so that they are without excuse.

---

Christians tell unbelievers that they ought to believe in God because of the testimony of the earth and heavens. Yet, they themselves refuse to consider the testimony of the earth and heavens on their age and manner of creation. I would like to suggest that such Christians need to heed Romans 1 as well and consider themselves without excuse when they reject the things the heavens and earth say about themselves.

Bible study as a forum, please. I realized I didn't suggest anything. I don't want to promote my own new topic.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Er...it's not what the heavens and earth say about themselves TL. Its what men and women say the heavens and earth say about themselves. Quite a different matter that..as well you know.Presumably the heavens and earth were speaking in the Intended Fashion long before ToE came along. The glory contained within was, we must then suppose, self-expressing. In need of no adornment. In fact and very much off hand, I can think of nothing to which one adds man in order to come up with improvement. And I mean that in an absolute sense.Happy New Year EvCEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Apparently, given His actions in Genesis, your God disagrees. Happy New Year to you, too, iano.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

quote:

---

The glory contained within was, we must then suppose, self-expressing. In need of no adornment.In fact and very much off hand, I can think of nothing to which one adds man in order to come up with improvement.

---

Perhaps there are a few things in the bible that one can think of that are not quite "self expressing"?Mattew 24:29 - Some problems with the understanding of the moon, and its reflection of the suns light. Science cleared up any misunderstandings however.Revelations 6:13 - Given when the bible was written one can see why its writers believed stars were tiny.Job 9:6 Job 38:13 Isaiah 11:12 Daniel 4:11 - We now know that earth is not really flat, with pillars, and four corners.There are many things in the bible that people of our times know not to be "literally true".

quote:

---

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork

---

I find this to be possibly the most amusing line in the bible. Millions of people so strongly reject science and its conclusions yet even the bible states that man can see Gods work in nature. When people immediatly deny the results of science without taking an honest look into the research... are they not refusing to acknowledge Gods handiwork?Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

I don't see why you would use "the moon will not give its light" as proof that a reflection of sunlight could not be realized.Would that mean that everyone today who uses the phrase "moonlight" needs science to clear up for them that the moon only reflects light? The language is not unscientific. The language is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards. There is a difference.If you withnessed something like a massive meteorite shower in the night it would appear as if the stars were falling. I only see imprecise language according to modern standards not scientific errors in statements. Again I only see either somewhat poetic language or imprecise language according to modern standards.In fact when Jesus speaks about His second coming He says two will be in the field working and two will be in the bed. This could well be taken to prove that He realized it would be daylight for some people in the world while night time for others:"I tell you, In that night there will be two on one bed; the one will be taken and the other will be left ... Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left" (See Luke 17:34-36; Matt. 24:40-41)

but until science was able to clear it up, people did believe the moon gave off light. well..yes, if they really believe that nonsense, its a word use we have had for nearly as long as people looked at the moon, i doubt it will change any uhm what?! it is unscientific! by any standard! the only way you can argue its science at all is if you change what science means oh come on.. if you see objects that you take for stars falling and, they arn't stars, then you are 100% wrong!
theres no quibble on this you are just wrong uhm, many people believed the earth was flat, the text doesn't say anything at all about it being a sphere, only a circle, a flat circle, so what are supposed to gather from that? they really didn't mean it was flat or that they really did believe it? unless you already believe they didn't mean it, i'd say the default is they did oh come on its not talking about that, your interpretation is a fabracation, it even says what jesus is talking about!stop bloody taking it out of context, you are putting words in jesus's mouth and altering the text what you are doing is called making shit up, it says nothing about the days, its talking about people being taken when god decides to, it also speaks of when god will send the son of man, the prophet of god, its not speaking of daylight, but of the fact that it doesn't matter what a person is doing or how many god will take one and leave anotherEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by AdminTL, : fixed last quote box

I believe the misunderstanding could result from the use of the word "its" in the sentence. Yes, you are right in that people could realize it is simply the reflection of the sun. Alternatively a person may think its would imply the light is caused by the moon. Science told us how to interpret this. I did not say this is proof of anything, but it is quite obvious that the modern knowledge in science makes clear the moon is not a light source. This may be correct if I didn't have the knowledge that science has given me to understand that my impressions of reality are not nessesarily correct. Stars are not tiny, as we now know, and they do not fall to Earth, to say anything of the sort is simply wrong. Its not "scientifically imprecise", such imprescision is not scientific. Analogy, Metaphor, Symbol but certainly not science.I am not trying to lessen ReverendDG's reply, we can all look at bible quotes and try to interpret what they may or may not have been trying to say. Perhaps Jesus did know the Earth was a sphere, thankfully science has progressed enough to say for a fact that some quotes from the bible are not literal. You cannot pretend in the present times that science has not changed how people read and interpret the bible. You may read that the earths pillars are poetic, but you know this only because science has told you it is literally incorrect.

I don't agree with you."Stars are not tiny" is a matter of opinion and perspective. Compared to the size of some local group of over 100 galaxies clustered together one could say "the stars are tiny" in comparison.Peering into the sky with unaided eye at the deemist stars in the Milky Way one could say "the stars in the Milky Way band across the middle of the sky are tiny." By perspective that is not an unscientific statement.Anyway, the writer of Revelation did not say they were tiny or huge. He just said that they fell to the earth. According to modern precise definitions we know that it is unlikely that a star would fall to earth. But it is reasonable that the writer witnesses something celestial in the general catagory of the day as a star moved rapidly towards the earth or even plunged into the ground before him. And is likely to enfluence it again. There is no pretending on my part that we read things today through a different perspective. Since God knew this He spoke through the prophets in a way which was the most global and universal possible.We get the general idea from Revelation that the cosmos will be thrown into disorder close to the Second Coming of Christ. I think for the last 2,000 years readers get the picture. And of course Isaiah had written similiar things some 800 or so years before. That is arguable. Some might consider tectonic plates as pillars.Let me ask you. Is it less of a scientific error than saying that "the sun set"? Is it less an error than saying "I will meet you at sunrise"?Suppose I refer to the "Big Bang". Is that scientifically correct? Where was the sound if there were no air throughout space to allow a "Bang" sound to be heard?Twenty years I could refer to Pluto as a planet and no one would object. As of recent Pluto has been demoted from planethood to be a pluton. Was refering to Pluto as a planet twenty years ago unscientific?Is space a vacuum? Some say it is not. Perhaps 50 years hence a new generation will discover space is not at all a vacuum. If so are we unscientific for refering to "outer space" today?I think the Bible's utterances about the earth were superior to the ancient thoughts of the earth riding on the back of giant turtles.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't agree with you...

---

Compared to the local group, I agree stars are tiny. Compared to the milky way stars are also tiny. Compared to what the bible says... The bible says the stars fell to Earth (this passage is then relative to Earth and nothing else). How do you think the people who wrote/read the bible in those times would interpet this passage? It compared the stars to figs!

quote:

---

Some might consider tectonic plates as pillars

---

The point I am trying to make, however poorly, is that the bible does not lead anyone to these considerations.We both seem to agree on perspective for some of these seemingly incorrect statements in the bible. I don't think it is nessesarily correct to use these, and many other, passages in the bible as clear cut errors. They do show that we cannot depend on the bible as the sole source of knowledge in science. The OP shows how the writers of the bible even understood this.

Right.What can we depend on the Bible for in your view? I say we can definitely depend on the Bible to give us God Himself, personally, experiencially. And we can depend on the Bible to convey to us the meaning of our lives here in His creation.We can depend upon the Bible to feed a deep spiritual hunger within our spirit and nourish us with God's presence.We can also depend on the Bible to expose us and hold us up to the light of God's righteousness and holiness.And we can depend on it to lead us to the way of reconciliation and redemption to God - and eternal life and His undying love.

quote:

---

What can we depend on the Bible for in your view?

---

I think for many people the bible can have all the effects you have listed. None of which I have any problem with.I believe that taken in the right light it can be a usefull way of providing hope, morals, and a more just society. Taken in the wrong light I think it restricts scientific progression, restricts its readers to gaining more knowledge, and can be psychologically damaging.A quick scan of the forums will show that both views are well represented.

I think by the same token not being abused it can add to scientific progression.The morality inspired by the Bible has been a cause of seeking medical cures. And I think to understand that intelligence is behind the creation is more fruitful to science than the other notion of chaotic randomness.Einstien said that he did not believe that God played dice with the cosmos.I know that Einstien was not a Christian. I just mean that he believed that God did not play dice with the cosmos. I think a good number of posters on this forum not only dismiss God's existence but believe something is playing dice with the cosmos.

Modern people are not claiming to be divinely inspired to be scientifically accurate. I don't believe the Bible claims that, either, but most anti-evolutionists do claim that the Bible is divinely inspired to be scientfically accurate.Therefore, we are not under obligation to be correct about what's in space. The anti-evolutionists, however, are under obligation to explain the scientific inaccuracies in the Bible in order to justify their position. This is irrelevant. The question is not whether it's superior to other creation stories. The question is whether those who reject science, saying the Bible is divinely inspired to be accurate, have a leg to stand on.My argument, in the OP, is that the Bible itself says you ought not to reject the conclusions of those who study the heavens and the earth, because--according to the Bible itself--they are God's testimony about himself every bit as much as the Bible is.