Skip to comments.Evolution vs. God: Shaking the foundations of Faith
Posted on 10/17/2013 1:18:41 PM PDT by redleghunter
If you are familiar with Ray Comfort and the man on the street Way of the Master ministries, you will like this video. WoM ministries produced the linked youtube 30 minute video on Evolution vs. God. Ray and crew go to two CA universities to interview and debate science students and science faculty on Darwinian evolution.
So please set aside a half hour from your busy schedule and enjoy "Evolution vs. God."
I concur with the glaring obvious truthfulness presented by God through faith in Jesus Christ, of His Plan for all of us,..but quite truthfully, His Resurrection is merely secondary evidence of His stature. He has already presented more than overwhelming evidence of His being the Messiah for those who merely accept what He provides us through grace,
Thank you for a well thought out response. I think in our post-modern society can’t get past Genesis 1:1.
Interesting in the video Comfort mentions micro-biology is observable. I think we all agree because there is evidence. The changes of ‘kind’ is what he beats on. Then he shifts the interview to the “morals” of evolutionists. The part about the drowning dog and neighbor was telling. All those students chose to save the dog instead of the neighbor.
If you had time to see the video, Comfort entered with an ID approach. Meaning what we observe requires a designer.
One of the best modern era Christian philosophers was Francis Schaeffer. His ministry focused on big international university intelligentsia. Schaffer when confronted with the Genesis account would remind people that The Bible is God’s revelation to mankind. It is not a complete revelation by God of His complete Nature and Power. Schaffer went as far as to say most would argue what God revealed may not be the best answer they are looking for. In the second breath, he would then tell them, but it is the only answer.
Another point. God communicated Genesis in a very concrete language using a vocabulary for a nomadic people. I think if a dedicated scientist looked deeper into the text they might be surprised at what they find.
Where did the video make the faith vs. science claim. It did not. If you watched it you would see it employed the scientific model.
Excellent post. And might I say the God of Resurrection certainly would not require billions of years to simply form a man from dust!
“Religious people who disrespect science are every bit as annoying as scientific people who disrespect faith.”
But neither of them are anywhere as annoying as those who think that Christians ought to live with falsely called “science,” not saying a word as stupidities go forward unchallenged.
“I think if a dedicated scientist looked deeper into the text they might be surprised at what they find.”
What do you mean? Can you expand on that?
Paul was saying that the resurrection of the dead was proof of God’s power, indeed of his existence. Otherwise Christianity is nothing but another dead religion. Christ was without sin, thus he had not incurred the wages of sin which was death. Christ was the love letter sent by God, his very imprimatur stamped into matter...the resurrection was God’s exclamation point and a sign of our future hope of such a same resurrection. No other religion makes such a promise in the way Christianity does; which is why there is such angry vehemence directed against it. Salvation simply by grace, by confession that Jesus is Lord and a belief that God has raised him from the dead? “Such offensive comments” cry the scoffers and critics!
No, my friend, Paul’s statement underscores the very importance of the resurrection to Christianity for if we have men coming back to life by the power of God, then we have indeed found the well springs of Life eternal. It proves Christ’s divinity, humanity, and his sinlessness.
Still, scientifically speaking, the concept of the resurrection would be considered at best a tautology, a question only answered within the heart and faith of the individual who considers Christ.
Paul posits the resurrection as a “if, then statement”. If Christ had not risen from the dead, then we might as well just live like the murdering, rutting animals we are by our very nature. There is no other hope but Christ, but our hope in Christ is in vain had he just been an enlightened rabble rouser killed by the Romans, whose body simply rotted in the ground like all the rest of us!
I agree the Resurrection verifies His Word, but our salvation is paid for at the Cross, not the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the First Fruits of one of our future rewards.
If there is no fall of Adam, there is no original sin and no sin nature inherited by everyone of his progeny, Jesus of Nazareth excepting, of course.
Are you certain about that? William Provine prior to his despatch was a leadin spokesman for Darwinism. Here is just one of his many quotes on the subject.
Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless
. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood. William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University
Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false. William B. Provine, Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life, in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 65
A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, Great, were in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does? This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion. William B. Provine, Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life, in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 70