what about evolution? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

cchris -> what about evolution? (5/13/2008 12:27:55 PM)

We are wasting our time arguing about this to non-believers. The fact is our most important message isn't about science but about spiritualty, and if someone doesn't believe in God then they won't care about the meaning of genesis.

My view on the subject, since I am among believers anyhow, is that the Bible is not a technical manual but a spiritual one. Like any book of parables it is open to interpretation. I'm not saying that the Bible means whatever you want it to, only that it isn't a math book. You can look at Revelations and believe that dragons will come from the sea, or that the visions given by God aren't always 'plug slot A into slot B' instructions, but parables to be contemplated over and over again. David himself interpreted the future through coded visions. It wouldn't surprise me if interpreting the past was done in the same fashion.

Regardless, this is not an essential issue. We need to stop fighting about where we came from and focus on where we are going; to focus on man's inherent nature as a moral and spiritual being who is a creation of God, whichever way God chose to make him. I believe that this is the essential message we should be spreading and it is the only way to reach someone who is lost and cares only about his own misery.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 12:42:59 PM)

quote:

We are wasting our time arguing about this to non-believers. The fact is our most important message isn't about science but about spiritualty, and if someone doesn't believe in God then they won't care about the meaning of genesis.

My view on the subject, since I am among believers anyhow, is that the Bible is not a technical manual but a spiritual one. Like any book of parables it is open to interpretation. I'm not saying that the Bible means whatever you want it to, only that it isn't a math book. You can look at Revelations and believe that dragons will come from the sea, or that the visions given by God aren't always 'plug slot A into slot B' instructions, but parables to be contemplated over and over again. David himself interpreted the future through coded visions. It wouldn't surprise me if interpreting the past was done in the same fashion.

Regardless, this is not an essential issue. We need to stop fighting about where we came from and focus on where we are going; to focus on man's inherent nature as a moral and spiritual being who is a creation of God, whichever way God chose to make him. I believe that this is the essential message we should be spreading and it is the only way to reach someone who is lost and cares only about his own misery.


I appreciate the desire for middle ground, but you are assuming that evolutionists accept even the notion that hiumans are "moral and spiritual beings"; by in large, they reduce these notions down to genetics as well.

It really at that point comes down to the conflict between materialism (the material world is all there is) and the idea that there is more to existence than that which is apparent by simply looking at the material world.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 1:09:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
It really at that point comes down to the conflict between materialism (the material world is all there is) and the idea that there is more to existence than that which is apparent by simply looking at the material world.


I think the material world is designed to resist the notion that naturalistic processes can account for the origin of the universe.

A book I recommend everyone read is The Biotic Message by Walter James Remine.



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 1:39:56 PM)

We can't generalize. I believe in evolution. It strikes me as a beautiful, brilliant, and epic way to unify creation. All of nature is designed by God's hand. Even when I didn't want to believe in God I could see no logical way to get around it.

Nothing will never produce anything, and everything is unified. I see the natural inclination of all peoples towards virtue (almost all religions demonstrate a good and an evil) and repulsion towards evil. Good stabilizes while evil destroys. I also believe in the divinity of Christ, and see him as the supreme hero, the perfect man.

My friend was an atheist untill he found he couldn't justify love and mercy as anything else but divine. I believe these technical arguments -- which tend almost without fail to degrade into ugly disputes-- are repulsing the people who we can reach through other, more relevant means.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 1:56:11 PM)

quote:

We can't generalize. I believe in evolution. It strikes me as a beautiful, brilliant, and epic way to unify creation. All of nature is designed by God's hand. Even when I didn't want to believe in God I could see no logical way to get around it.

Nothing will never produce anything, and everything is unified. I see the natural inclination of all peoples towards virtue (almost all religions demonstrate a good and an evil) and repulsion towards evil. Good stabilizes while evil destroys. I also believe in the divinity of Christ, and see him as the supreme hero, the perfect man.

My friend was an atheist untill he found he couldn't justify love and mercy as anything else but divine. I believe these technical arguments -- which tend almost without fail to degrade into ugly disputes-- are repulsing the people who we can reach through other, more relevant means.


I am not quite sure how all these statements go together, but I will say this - if you think that there is a "natural inclination of all peoples towards virtue", then you either have an unfamiliar notion of the word 'virtue', or you simply aren't much of a fan of history or current events.



gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 2:48:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I appreciate the desire for middle ground, but you are assuming that evolutionists accept even the notion that hiumans are "moral and spiritual beings"; by in large, they reduce these notions down to genetics as well.

It really at that point comes down to the conflict between materialism (the material world is all there is) and the idea that there is more to existence than that which is apparent by simply looking at the material world.


You are showing your myopia again. You are assuming that all evolutionists are materialistic reductionists. Maybe you need to meet more evolutionists and find out what they really believe. We are not all clones of Dawkins and Dennett.

Personally, I think CChris has the right approach.



swan42 -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 2:50:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cchris

We are wasting our time arguing about this to non-believers. The fact is our most important message isn't about science but about spiritualty, and if someone doesn't believe in God then they won't care about the meaning of genesis.

My view on the subject, since I am among believers anyhow, is that the Bible is not a technical manual but a spiritual one. Like any book of parables it is open to interpretation. I'm not saying that the Bible means whatever you want it to, only that it isn't a math book. You can look at Revelations and believe that dragons will come from the sea, or that the visions given by God aren't always 'plug slot A into slot B' instructions, but parables to be contemplated over and over again. David himself interpreted the future through coded visions. It wouldn't surprise me if interpreting the past was done in the same fashion.

Regardless, this is not an essential issue. We need to stop fighting about where we came from and focus on where we are going; to focus on man's inherent nature as a moral and spiritual being who is a creation of God, whichever way God chose to make him. I believe that this is the essential message we should be spreading and it is the only way to reach someone who is lost and cares only about his own misery.


Wow! A voice in the wilderness.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 3:50:39 PM)

quote:

You are showing your myopia again. You are assuming that all evolutionists are materialistic reductionists. Maybe you need to meet more evolutionists and find out what they really believe. We are not all clones of Dawkins and Dennett.

Personally, I think CChris has the right approach.


The question really isn’t predicated on whether everyone does agree with Dawkins and Dennett, but whether it makes a difference if every scientist did agree with Dawkins and Dennett. Those who think the ‘consensus’ rules would be consigned to that thinking.



gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 4:01:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You are showing your myopia again. You are assuming that all evolutionists are materialistic reductionists. Maybe you need to meet more evolutionists and find out what they really believe. We are not all clones of Dawkins and Dennett.

Personally, I think CChris has the right approach.


The question really isn’t predicated on whether everyone does agree with Dawkins and Dennett, but whether it makes a difference if every scientist did agree with Dawkins and Dennett. Those who think the ‘consensus’ rules would be consigned to that thinking.



The 'consensus' applies to scientific theories, not to philosophies. No matter how many scientists prefer one philosophy over another, it doesn't make that philosophy a scientific conclusion forced by the evidence.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 4:23:00 PM)

quote:

The 'consensus' applies to scientific theories, not to philosophies. No matter how many scientists prefer one philosophy over another, it doesn't make that philosophy a scientific conclusion forced by the evidence.


I appreciate your romantic notion about 'philosophy', but the fact is most people couldn't differentiate one philosophy from another to save their lives - and as much as our culture has been subjected to over-arching notions of empiricism, it no longer recognizes a 'philosophy' as a viable means by which to make determinations.

In fact, if you wanted to do some goood, your time would be better spent on atheist boards and scientific forums convincing them that your antiquated notions of philosophy should have some bearing; let me know how far you get.



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 4:48:45 PM)

ORIGINAL:ccris
quote:

My view on the subject, since I am among believers anyhow, is that the Bible is not a technical manual but a spiritual one. Like any book of parables it is open to interpretation.

Do you believe the Bible contains ANY literal history?



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 4:58:24 PM)

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

I am not quite sure how all these statements go together, but I will say this - if you think that there is a "natural inclination of all peoples towards virtue", then you either have an unfamiliar notion of the word 'virtue', or you simply aren't much of a fan of history or current events.

Not to mention Biblical incompetence.
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” – Proverbs 14-12

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” Romans 3:10-12



gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 4:59:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The 'consensus' applies to scientific theories, not to philosophies. No matter how many scientists prefer one philosophy over another, it doesn't make that philosophy a scientific conclusion forced by the evidence.


I appreciate your romantic notion about 'philosophy', but the fact is most people couldn't differentiate one philosophy from another to save their lives - and as much as our culture has been subjected to over-arching notions of empiricism, it no longer recognizes a 'philosophy' as a viable means by which to make determinations.


Whether they recognize it or not, it is still the way most people make determinations. They may call it "world view" or even "ethics" or even "that's just how I feel about it" but it comes to the same thing.



quote:

In fact, if you wanted to do some goood, your time would be better spent on atheist boards and scientific forums convincing them that your antiquated notions of philosophy should have some bearing; let me know how far you get.


Could say the same for you. Shall we choose one together?



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 5:05:01 PM)

quote:

Whether they recognize it or not, it is still the way most people make determinations. They may call it "world view" or even "ethics" or even "that's just how I feel about it" but it comes to the same thing.


That may be true, but don't you agree that there is a significant difference between a well thought out worldview based on metaphysical considerations and revelation, and simply saying, "that's how I feel about it"?

quote:

Could say the same for you. Shall we choose one together?


I don't think that they care.



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 5:09:08 PM)

ORIGINAL:Bettawrekonize
quote:

I think the material world is designed to resist the notion that naturalistic processes can account for the origin of the universe.

That concept is Biblically sound.
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” – Romans 1:20



Method -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 5:22:47 PM)

cchris,

I really enjoyed your post, even as a non-believer. I think everyone in this debate, including myself, tend to forget that 40% of biologists believe in a personal God. Obviously, evolution and christianity can and do coexist.

Views on origins within christianity are heavily couched in theology, and I don't think anyone will disagree. But what what about science itself? Scientists need a theory to apply in their work, a theory that produces results. The theory of evolution is not the overwhelmingly accepted theory because of it's supposed atheistic implications. It is the consensus theory because it works when applied to problems found in biology. In the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics the theory is being used to annotate the human genome, discover the source of Campylobacter infections, discover the root of genetic diseases, and a whole host of important scientific work. The theory of evolution is the foundation of research in the biological sciences.

For you, evolution and creationism may be a theological question but for scientists it is a pragmatic question.



Method -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 5:26:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I appreciate the desire for middle ground, but you are assuming that evolutionists accept even the notion that hiumans are "moral and spiritual beings"; by in large, they reduce these notions down to genetics as well.


40% of evolutionists believe in a personal God. This doesn't jive with what you are saying.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 5:31:01 PM)

quote:

40% of evolutionists believe in a personal God. This doesn't jive with what you are saying.


How do they contend humans evolved a soul?



Method -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 5:38:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

40% of evolutionists believe in a personal God. This doesn't jive with what you are saying.


How do they contend humans evolved a soul?


Why don't you ask them?

From my understanding, the Catholic Church contends that evolution explains the development of the human body while God embues the body with a soul. Other views may differ. Teilhard also had some interesting views.



gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 5:58:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

40% of evolutionists believe in a personal God. This doesn't jive with what you are saying.


How do they contend humans evolved a soul?



Since a soul is not a biological property, there is no need to speculate on its evolution. The human soul is God-given, not biologically derived. Some hold that God imbued a literal Adam and Eve with the first human souls. Some hold that the whole human population was so gifted at an unspecified point in its history.

One could just as well ask (as medieval scholars did): when does the embryo develop a soul?



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 6:55:54 PM)

quote:

Why don't you ask them?

From my understanding, the Catholic Church contends that evolution explains the development of the human body while God embues the body with a soul. Other views may differ. Teilhard also had some interesting views.


You are the one who offered it; if you don't really know, then why put it out there??



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 6:57:49 PM)

quote:

Since a soul is not a biological property, there is no need to speculate on its evolution. The human soul is God-given, not biologically derived. Some hold that God imbued a literal Adam and Eve with the first human souls. Some hold that the whole human population was so gifted at an unspecified point in its history.

One could just as well ask (as medieval scholars did): when does the embryo develop a soul?


So someone who believed in the existence of the soul really wouldn't be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word, as they would believe a human body came about through natural processes, but in the final estimation was the product of divine attribution.



swan42 -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 7:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Since a soul is not a biological property, there is no need to speculate on its evolution. The human soul is God-given, not biologically derived. Some hold that God imbued a literal Adam and Eve with the first human souls. Some hold that the whole human population was so gifted at an unspecified point in its history.

One could just as well ask (as medieval scholars did): when does the embryo develop a soul?


So someone who believed in the existence of the soul really wouldn't be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word, as they would believe a human body came about through natural processes, but in the final estimation was the product of divine attribution.


Sigh...an evolutionist or a quasi-evolutionist would not label themselves such.

In the creation-evolution controversy, those who accept the scientific theory of biological evolution by natural selection or genetic drift are often called "evolutionists", and the theory of evolution itself is referred to as "evolutionism" by creationists. This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is similar to other "isms", such as Creationism, Evangelism, Judaism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Nationalism, Catholicism. In this way, creationists bolster their claim that the scientific theory of evolution is a belief, dogma, ideology or even a religion, rather than a scientific theory. The terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are rarely used in the scientific community as self-descriptive terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism



essentialsaltes -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 7:15:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

So someone [an evolutionist] who believed in the existence of the soul really wouldn't be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word...


Don't be ridiculous. Like gods, immaterial souls are neither required nor forbidden by science.



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 7:57:03 PM)

I appreciate the attention this thread has generated. It is good to see the desire for truth in so many.

Unclemonkey, I believe that the entire Bible is technical truth. I am sad at the disrespectful tone you decided to take with me, and though I should resent what you said, I don't. I'm only speaking my mind and I can't expect everyone to agree with me, or even like me. Call me biblically "incompetant" if you want. I still believe that when the Bible is read, it isn't read as a VCR manual. It is the book of all mysteries, and its message is found in-between the lines.

Jhud, it is also unfortunate that your tone seems less friendly now that you know I believe in evolution. Regardless: I didn't say that men were perfect, only that there is a trend among the human race to admire virtue and detest vice. Fictional heroes almost without fail embody virtue. The prime virtues aren't always the same, but you will be hard pressed to find a cowardly or malicious hero-- or a selfless and merciful villain for that matter. Check any culture you like. Christianity then, to me, is the embodiment and galvanization of all virtues that lay dormant in the human heart.

Method, I appreciate your civility. I was once an atheist, so don't think that I am unsympathetic to your point of view. To me science and spirituality are seperate studies. There is no need for a scientist to say "there is no God," any more than for a spiritualist to say "there is no science". As you pointed out, they can co-exist, and in fact do. Science is simply a way to understand and utilize the natural laws that were set forth before the beginning of time. It is a gift from God, and we can use or see it any way we want.

Now, back to the main point of my post, because the lost don't care about any of what we just discussed. All they know and care about is that they are hurting, and a Christian shouting at them about how he shouldn't believe in evolution will do nothing but repel him further from God.

Personally, it's ok if you don't believe in evolution. What matters to me is that you want to help save people and bring the love of God to them. That is why I want us to focus on attacking Satan where he is the weakest -- in the fact that he can give a person everything but happiness. By demonstrating how God has worked in our own lives, through patience and unity, I believe this can be accomplished.

Salvation is a personal journey, and we can't expect to argue a person into believing, but by being there for them and taking time to share our own personal journey and the peace and hope that we feel, we can reach out into a hostile, secular world. I don't believe that there's any other way.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI