Skip to comments.Evolution Controversy Reignites Among Evangelical Christians
Posted on 07/04/2011 10:00:42 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
The debate among evangelical Christians over Darwin's theory of evolution has returned to front stage this summer with the publication of two separate cover stories on the issue by leading Christian magazines.
In its June cover story, Christianity Today reported on how Christian proponents of Darwin are challenging historic beliefs about Adam and Eve.
Now Christian news magazine World has announced that it will name two books critiquing "theistic evolution" as its "Books of the Year" in its upcoming July 2 issue. World called the evolution debate in churches and religious colleges "the biggest current battle both among Christians and between Christian and anti-Christian thought."
One of the two books honored by World is God and Evolution: Protestants, Catholics, and Jews Explore Darwin's Challenge to Faith (Discovery Institute Press, 2010).
The book's editor, Dr. Jay Richards, commented, "We wanted to clear away the fog and fuzzy-thinking on this issue. Our book makes clear that to the degree theistic evolution is theistic, it will not be fully Darwinian. And to the degree that it is Darwinian, it will fail fully to preserve traditional theism."
God and Evolution features essays by Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars critical of the growing effort by advocates of theistic evolution such as Francis Collins to persuade leaders of the faith community to change their theology without hearing from scientists who are skeptical of the claims of unguided Darwinian evolution.
"Over the past couple of years, Collins has convened large closed-door meetings of evangelical Christian leaders to convince them to embrace theistic evolution," said Dr. John West, who wrote the first two chapters of God and Evolution.
"These gatherings intentionally excluded any scientists who were critical of Darwin's theory of unguided evolution. Collins has said that he wants to foster dialogue on this issue, but excluding scholars who dissent from Darwin from the conversation is a recipe for monologue, not dialogue."
For more information visit www.faithandevolution.org
SOURCE Discovery Institute
Jesus did warn about wolves dressed in sheep's clothing preaching another gospel.
I’ll take God at His Word and leave Darwin to the dead.
It is entirely possible to believe in both Creation and Evolution at the same time.
I get irritated at the radicals on both sides of this issue.
God will laugh at all of you, when the time comes for you to learn the truth.
“It is entirely possible to believe in both Creation and Evolution at the same time.”
I don’t think so.
If it is radical to take God at his word, then, put me down as a radical.
You either believe the word of God, or your don’t.
Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all they work.
Verse 9 sets the absolute standard definition of 6 literal days in the framework which man shall understand a typical work day and work week, 24 hour day + 6 day work week. Anyone who denies this framework is clearly rejecting God's clear instruction. Verse 10 instructs us about the Sabbath day, a literal 24 hour day, not millions of years. If the Sabbath is clearly understood to be 24 hour day, why cannot the 6 days of the work week be understood.
Now in verse 11, Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day...
What! The LORD made everything in 6 literal days and clearly made a comparison between the 24 hour Sabbath and the other 6 literal work week days of verse 9. Only a fool would deny these clear verses.
Theistic evolution is a lie and work of the devil to deceive men who would deny the clear teachings of Exodus 20:9-11 and its accurate description of 6 literal 24 hour days of creation; not six millennium or any other evolutionary creation method.
Exodus 20:9-11 is simply an accurate commentary or exegesis on Genesis 1. Why do you think God put this exegesis here, I contend that with God's perfect understanding of man, He knew it was necessary to ward off men of future days who would deny the literal 6 days of creation. God knew that men would profess to be wise...and they become fools.
Read God’s Word in Exodus 20:9-11, it is a clear and accurate exegesis on Genesis 1 and the 6 literal days of creation of My God, Almighty Creator, Holy, and His Words and His thoughts are higher than mans thoughts: Isaiah 55:8-11.
What exactly does Christianity have to do with Adam & Eve?
>> It is entirely possible to believe in both Creation and Evolution at the same time.
>> I get irritated at the radicals on both sides of this issue.
If you believe in both Creationism and Evolution at the same time, wouldn’t that make you an irritated, duplicitous radical?
They establish that man's creation was for the purpose of reflecting the image of God to bring Him glory, in a personal, intimate relationship. They reveal man's desire to "be like God", a position only reserved for the Creator. They also establish that man is incapable of restoring that image and relationship on his own, thus he hid as God walked the garden calling his name.
There is a curious part of evolution which is going on around us today. If you ever looked at the ceilings of Dutch and German homes made in the 1600s...they were fairly low and the average height of a guy was several inches lower than what we have today. How did we change over 400 years? You can use forty different phrases, but they all equal some type of evolution underway. By 2500, I would imagine that we will all be at least three inches taller than what we are today, if the trend holds.
When Christians discuss, it isn’t scandalous—contrary to the portrayal of the media, evangelicals aren’t drooling morons.
What IS scandalous is the utter refusal of secularist scientists and liberals to entertain any idea outside their closed, materialistic world view.
For myself, I am less clear on the meaning of the six days. For example they were worded oddly...each was from Evening until Morning, rather than from Evening till Evening. There are several details of the creation narratives in Gensis that do not seem literal to me, such as 3:23
Here in Europe, the big challenge to evolution is coming from an Islamic preacher named Harun Yahya, with some really slick books and multimedia presentations. If you wish, go to www.harunyahya.com and check it out. He does some good presentation, and I think a lot of Christians would agree with his views on evolution.
More playing with dates...and I keep getting results that show no clear trend, and roughly equal ice levels. The sample you showed seemed to be one of the worst you could have picked per your point ironically.
This guy permotes Islam as well as Universalism...why are you referring people to him?????
I don’t concern myself with evolution, creation, young Earth, old Earth, intelligent design, etc., because I can’t prove any of them. I trust the Bible, but I know many, many Bible-believing Christians who get entirely different meanings from Genesis. I have my own opinion, of course, but frankly, it just doesn’t matter.
Christians would do well to avoid dissent with their brothers and sisters over meanings that are not related to salvation (not saying you’re dissenting—just making a point). I see no reason to contend with my fellow believers over minor matters.
There are certain fundamental beliefs to Christianity that we must stand firm on. Stuff like Christ is the Son of God is non-negotiable. Trying to decide whether God created the Earth in 7 literal days is not essential to one’s standing as a Christian. Suffice it to say we’ll all learn the truth someday. We can fellowship just fine without knowing the answer right now.
Evolution is a dead theory walking, supported at this juncture by academic dead wood and people with lifestyle issues and/or tenure issues. It’s junk science and no competent theologian should be interested in it.
Among TRUE “evangelical Christians”, there is no controversy.
Nonetheless others can and have. Evolution has been entirely disproved at this point; all it has going for it is the inertia of the big lie which Hitler described. The fruit fly experiments of the first few decades of the past century were a coercive disproof, if macroevolution were possible at all it would have been seen.
Fruit flies breed new generations every other DAY, so that running that sort of experiment for two or three decades involves more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of monkeys, apes, hominids, or humans on this planet. They subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and then combined the resulting mutants every possible way; all they ever got was fruit flies, sterile freaks, and freaks which returned to the norm for a fruit fly after two or three generations.
Those experiments were meant to prove macroevolution and they disproved it. The failure was so garish and unambiguous that several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at the time. The failure resulted because our entire living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in that picture was that for a fruit fly. When the nature of the DNA/RNA information system was discovered in the 1960s, by all rights, evolution should have been abandoned by the entire world. At that point the reason for the fruit fly experiment failures was basically known.
Isn’t mutation almost always a bad thing? Nevertheless, some people will no doubt say fruit flies prove nothing. As a layman, I don’t know enough about genetics, DNA, mutation, etc., to prove or disprove them. I think the vast majority are in the same boat. We only know what the experts in a particular field tell us. I’d rather not fight over things I cannot prove one way or the other. I’m even that way about Christianity. I try to understand the Word and live my life according to it, but when it comes to others believing (or not believing) the same things, I present my point of view. If they are not receptive, I’m not going to browbeat them over it.
Most excellent question, thank you.
The Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross for the sins of folks like you and me. This is the fundamental of Christianity and all orthodox Christians believe it.
The Lord Jesus Christ had to die for our sins, but the question comes up - Where did sin come from?
The Apostle Paul sums it up well "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned." Romans 5:12 . So Paul says that One man brought sin upon the whole world and the human race. So who was that Man?
Looking further in Romans 5 we find the answer "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" Romans 5:14. From this we see that it was ADAMS transgression that brought sin and death upon the world.
If it was Adam, where can we read this and what happened? Well the Bible answers that in Genesis.
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16,17:. Here God commanded Adam, that HE COULD EAT anything from the garden EXCEPT FROM THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. If he did then the penalty was stated "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
What happened? Well the short version is "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:6
Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and they died Spiritually that Day and according to the Apostle Paul, the effects of that caused Sin and Death upon the WHOLE HUMAN RACE (Romans 5:12).
But Blessed be God who planned a Savior foreshadowed from the beginning in Genesis 3:15 "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Who is "thee", it is the Enemy who deceived Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. Who is "her seed"? That is Mary's seed (from the Virgins womb) - The Lord Jesus Christ. And what is "bruise his heel"? That is the Lord Jesus Christ's dead on the cross and his resurrection. And what is "bruise thy head"? It is the Enemies demise.
What exactly does Christianity have to do with Adam & Eve?
Great question. The answer is Everything.
I can see your point. It is not unfeasible for there to be both an evolution of mankind and a literal Adam and Eve.
this has been gone over before...it’s our diet primarily.
Evolosers love to talk about "beneficial mutations" but the examples they provide always involve claims that something like sickle cell anemia is a "beneficial mutation" because it reduces the lucky victim's susceptibility to malaria. All such supposed beneficial mutations involve loss of genetic information and not gain and all of the known mutations amongst humans have names, like Down syndrome, cri-du-chat syndrome, cystic fibrosis etc. etc.
In real life I could just as easily save somebody from malaria by shooting them through the head with a 44, which would be a bit quicker than sickle cell and in fact if you think about it, you've probably never seen any sort of a movie where some beautiful African girl runs up to Tarzan or George of the Jungle screaming "Bwana, SAVE ME!! them ole malaria germs are AFTER me and I need you to shoot me through the head with that 375 H&H you're carryin so they don't get me!!!"
Didn't see that coming ...
And it is micro-evolution or changes within a kind.
Eventually it becomes obvious that life can NOT re-program itself rather that all changes were designed in each kinds living DNA for adaptation.
Evolution presupposes the changing of form. That perhaps something that is not a bird produces, over time, a bird., That a non-dog will change into a dog; and ultimately, that a human was produced from soemthing that was NOT human.
Creation says that humans were created as such, humans. While humans may chage, or adapt if you will, by skin color, hair texture, height, etc, in the end, we are a human.
Let me get this straight. You are saying that what God instructed some of the writers of scripture to write was unimportant? Are you saying that parts of scripture are irrelevant to us today?
“You can use forty different phrases, but they all equal some type of evolution underway. “
It’s undeniable that people at least around here are taller than they used to be.
I have read also that the people of North Korea are getting much smaller.
It has to do with nutrition, not evolution.
We remain the same species (homo sapiens). We aren’t changing into another species.
Evolution, properly called, requires the mutation of certain species in a beneficial way , adding information to the genetic code, that ultimately creates a new species. Birds become fish, or what have you. Variation among a species is not evolution.
You are correct in that God is outside of time, but He is also outside of our limited understanding. It seems that you are assuming that God had to allow this planet to mature over billions of years, when really He could have created a fully mature earth that only appears to be very old.
We simply don’t know exactly when God made the universe, but the context of Genesis supports the literal 24 hour day interpretation.
You also are getting hung up on King James English, when it’s clear the meaning of that passage is that death would result in disobedience. Other translations make it clear that the curse of death would not happen on the very same day.
The Bible was never intended to be a scientific journal or a perfect, all inclusive account of history.
In fact, the Bible, itself, was never even envisioned by any of the various authors of the various Books of the Bible.
Why do some Christians feel it is insulting and blasphemous to think we “came from monkeys” but they think it is OK to believe we came from dust?
What is dust?
House dust is from dust mite dung.
“Humus” is nutrient rich soil, formed from decayed animal or vegetable matter.
Why is it alright, and not at all insulting, to think that God made Adam, literally, from DECAYED animals, but somehow blasphemous to think that God made Adam from a long process of evolution?
Either way, the point is that humans were made from the biological material of other living things -— even for the most Fundamental Creationists out there!
How do you suggest God explain DNA and microscopic cells and other complicated subjects to the illiterate masses thousands of years ago, when Genesis was written?
This entire argument is absurd.
God does have a sense of humor, and He is, no doubt, laughing at those of us who waste so much time on this non-issue.
Again, the radicals on both sides are wrong.
You can be a true Christian and still believe that Evolution was part of God's plan.
So if you can't believe Genesis 1-11 is true, if you can't believe that the Ten Commandments are true, if you can't believe our LORD's ancestry is true, if you say that Peter lied about the Flood, if you say that Jesus Christ lied concerning origins and the flood, if you claim that death preceded sin and thus reject the doctrines of Redemption and Grace and therefore the Gospel...
How exactly can you claim that an Evolutionist can be a "true Christian"?/p>
No, according to the Scriptures Adam lived 930 years. He and the human race died Spiritually that day. For further proof see Psalm 14 and 53: 2,3 and Romans 3:11-18. And through the same testimony, Adam named the animals before eating the fruit.
Also in Genesis is the First Recorded piece of human speech: Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Not bad for the first man at that point.
>Open your eyes look up, and see the starlight from billions of years ago, and believe God created it, and he isn't trying to fool us into believing in an old universe. You are very close, the first thing created was "light".
If God exists outside of time, how long does the tiniest, smallest instant of His "time" appear to be to us?
“The Bible was never intended to be a scientific journal”
True, but it not a lie, either.
The Bible states clearly that God created the entire universe and all it contains in six days, and all very good. While no mathematical or scientific calculations are presented, the truth is presented.
To deny this is to deny that the Bible is true.
I'm assuming that is a rhetorical question....
How long was a “day” prior to the existence of an Earth?
God will laugh at you.
God does not care how what we believe, about how life began.
God only cares about how we live our individual lives.
“Do not put the Lord, your God, to the test” Jesus to Satan.
I suggest to you that we should never fall into the atheists’ trap of claiming that science disproves our Faith in a living God.
You have fallen into that trap when you take the Bible, written for purposes of Faith, and abuse it for purposes of science and history.
The Bible is theologically true.
Science is science, and scientifically true.
There is no contradiction.
It is a mystery to us mortals, at this time, but all will be made clear, later.
It is foolish to put God to the test.
So I read the news. And I looked around at human society as it is in this year of the Lord 2011. And I said to myself:
“If this bunch is the best we could do after millions of years of evolution...we’re [screwed].”
“A day measures the time it takes for the sun to rotate on its axis.”
(I assume you mean the time it takes for the EARTH to rotate upon its axis).
God defines “day.” He said He created light, I quote:
Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:3)
So, that was the first “day.” It was the light of the first period of time, divided by the darkness. Nothing about the spin of an axis.
Now, the next “day,” as defined by God:
Then God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8)
Light; darkness; in the meantime the firmament (heavens) is formed, the waters collected. Another day. No apparent spinning of an axis, as there is still no earth.
We get the earth on the third day, I quote:
“Then God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.
It is on the third day we can have an axis, as we now have an earth. A busy day, really, the seas formed and all the plants. Now we are spinning, presumably. 24 hours, approximately. It is still called a day.
And since then and ever since then a day has meant about a 24 hour period of time, with a period of sunrise and a period of night.
No evolution could have been possible until the 3rd day, anyway. There were no living things, except God Himself, until then.
“God does not care how what we believe, about how life began.
God only cares about how we live our individual lives. “
If He did not care there is no reason for Him to have spelled it out for us. His writing down about His acts of creation is evidence that He does care. Why reject what He has written?
The point is that God was and is the Creator.
HOW He did it would be far too complicated for Him to explain, even with all the memory or space in the largest Internet server available. How would you do such a thing in a short “Book” ?
CynicalBear: “Are you saying that parts of scripture are irrelevant to us today?”
No. I’m saying Bible-believing Christians can (respectfully) disagree over the meaning of certain passages, like the creation story in Genesis, without affecting their fellowship with each other. Real truth exists, but our understanding of scripture as mere mortals is not perfect. Otherwise, how can one account for differences of opinion among believers?
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...
Once saved always saved, pre- or post tribulation, full immersion versus sprinkling, young Earth or old Earth, etc. I’ve heard reasonable, scripture-based arguments for various conflicting opinions. I read, study and reach my own conclusions. I try not to let non-salvation doctrinal issues interfere with my relationship with other Christians.
Let me tell a quick story. I’m a Christian (neither Catholic or protestant), but I was raised protestant. I always heard about how bad Catholics were, that they believed a lot of things not supported by scripture. While doing some charity, I got to work with and have many discussions with nuns. Suffice it to say I don’t like all the Catholic ritual, but I’m certain the Catholic church contains real Christians. That may seem a funny thing to say, but there are protestants AND Catholics who are not Christian.
I see Christ’s church as one—undivided and pure. He knows his own, and they know Him. Members of His church aren’t separated by doctrine or different opinions about Bible verses. I think some Christians forget we’re all on the same team here.
I may hold a little harder line then you do when it comes to Catholics. Praying to Mary or any other then Jesus is totally contrary to scripture.
Of course Christs church is one and includes true believers who happen to attend many organized churches or no organized church at all. Where two or three are gathered.
“Human beings wrote the Bible.”
I must disagree with you, Kansas58. When we say the Bible is “inspired,” we mean, literally, “God-breathed.” We confess that the Bible in its original language is error free and not the work of man.
As to translation, I do agree, we have translated it into many languages. However, I don’t think there is any assertion of any major error and it has been studied more rigorously than any other document ever. No one who speaks Hebrew, for example, asserts that the creation account is mistranslated.
“The point is that God was and is the Creator.”
I am glad you confess that, but how do you know that, if you think the Bible is an error prone document written by men?