Skip to comments.If Your Church is Celebrating Darwin, Leave (and Donít Come Back)
Posted on 02/11/2017 6:34:51 AM PST by DWW1990
The 200th anniversary of the birth of devoted Materialist and Evolutionist Charles Darwin was in 2009. It was that year that I first became aware of Evolution Weekend. Originally Evolution Sunday, Evolution Weekend is the product of The Clergy Letter Project. This project exists to promote the teaching of Darwinian evolution, especially within religious institutions. For example, the letter to Christian clergy, in part, reads,
"While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts..."
First of all, a common criticism from Darwinists of all flavorsfrom the true believers: ardent atheists, to the spongy theistic evolutionists (ironically seen as heretics by the faithful on both sides of the evolution debate)is that Christians who accept the biblical account of the origin of mankind are making the mistake of reading the Bible (especially Genesis) literally.
(Excerpt) Read more at trevorgrantthomas.com ...
We only celebrate Jesus, our Lord and Savior.
It was “Casino Night” that caused me to switch churches. We should pray for those who have lost their way.
Ping for later.
Sorry, but your author misrepresents both science and the Bible. More later.
The Darwin Awards can be celebrated,it only makes sense. Idiots out of the gene pool and all that.
I would’ve left on acct. of that as well!
You have it backwards: Mr. Thomas correctly points out the “misrepresentations” of the Darwinists and their apologists. Nevertheless, I look forward to your efforts at “mental gymnastics” on this matter.
Well, the “Darwin Awards” are different. :)
Darwin believed in God.
So do the demons.
Our Churches are VERY FAR from perfect.
As are we.
Stop searching for the perfection that is not to be had on this here BALL OF MUD.
SO STICK AROUND AND FIX IT!! (My $.02.)
If it’s “FIXABLE!” then I don’t have a problem with that. But by all righteous means, OPPOSE DARWINISM!
I can’t really imagine anyone “worshiping” Darwin or the theory of evolution. That’s nonsense. It’s a scientific theory much like the theory of gravity in that it is explanatory for observations in the natural world.
Not at all.
DWW1990: " Mr. Thomas correctly points out the 'misrepresentation' of the Darwinists and their apologists."
I'm not here to defend atheists who make "Darwinism" their religion.
I am here to say they don't represent science itself, properly understood.
Indeed, I note your author is more than happy to accept such atheism as the very definition of science and so turn any possible debate from "science vs. religion" to "one religion (atheism) vs. another (Christianity)".
Then, if we accept that science is just another religion, it can be rejected on religious grounds, end of discussion.
But it's not, of course.
Despite what some atheists may say about science, traditional "natural science" is the opposite of religion in that it has nothing to do with terms like, "truth", "belief", "faith" or "wisdom".
At its core, science is only concerned with two things: observations and natural hypotheses attempting to explain them.
When an observation can be confirmed, science calls it a "fact" and if a hypothesis gets strongly confirmed, it's called a "theory".
None of this has anything to do with belief or faith, since observations are sometimes in error, hypotheses are frequently falsified and even confirmed theories are sometimes overturned when new data or better explanations come along.
So any acceptance of scientific "facts" or "theories" is conditional -- until better data or explanations can be found.
That's why I'll repeat: in science there is no truth, no belief, no faith and no wisdom, because strictly defined, those are not what science is all about.
And those who tell us otherwise are just hoping to pull the wool over our eyes, so to speak.
Instead, science is, and only ever can be, a rough model of reality as we can perceive it.
It's like a model ship, for example, impossible to make 100% accurate, and even if it were, hypothetically, it's still just a model, not the real thing, not "true".
And sure, science can be useful & helpful, but that still doesn't make it "wisdom" in the Biblical sense (gnosis).
Yes, some atheists in effect make science their religion, but historically and even today, many scientists have been clergy or strong believers in the Bible.
So, it's not necessary to be an atheist to like science, even so-called "historical sciences."
So, does science contradict the Bible?
Well, that depends on how you look at it.
If you consider science as just another religion at war against yours, then obviously it does.
But that was never the original intent of natural-sciences.
Instead, the intention was simply to explain in natural terms how God made what we see and detect.
Indeed, that methodological assumption of naturalism is what makes science uniquely different from any religion.
So while you and I are free to assign whatever divine interventions we wish to nature, science itself is forbidden by definition from going there.
If the only explanation is "divine intervention", then science itself can say nothing about it.
Instead, science will look for whatever natural explanations, however weak or even silly they may be, because that's all science, as science, can do.
Finally, you need to consider very carefully the following question: why did God not give Albert Einstein the Ten Commandments and tell Moses "E=MC2"?
The answer is obvious: because "E=MC2" would have done Moses no good whatever and without the Ten Commandments for Moses, Einstein would most likely never have been born.
Point is: God tells us what we really need to know, when we need to know it.
That's why the Bible says nothing about modern science.
But there are some amazing hints in the Bible, imho.
For example, "Let there be light" sounds to me like what God might tell an ancient shepherd about the Big Bang theory.
Psalms & other books tell us that God "stretches the heavens" which is just what science discovered in the last century.
Genesis also tells us that God began with dirt to make man, which sounds to me like evolution theory reduced to its most basic.
And we could go on -- a day for God is not just a thousand years for us, but a thousand years could also be just "a watch in the night", maybe four hours for God, meaning time itself is indeterminate, perhaps irrelevant to God.
But none of that changes the basic fact that the Bible does not deal in any way with natural causes & effects, while science, by definition, does not deal in any way with Divine Creation or Interventions (miracles).
So any link between natural and divine must happen within the minds of believers.
I'm only saying one does not necessarily exclude the other.
After 200 years you would think they would have found some actual proof of evolution. Where is the fossil record?
I don’t think you and I (or Mr. Thomas) are very far apart here. When it comes to your take on science, there is almost nothing I would disagree with. However, “Darwinists” have indeed made “science” their god. Also, they attempt to use “science” to paint the Bible as a book full of lies, fairy-tales, and nonsense.
For example, the devoted Darwinist sees the account of Noah not as historical fact, but as “allegory” or simply a lie. And they’re not shy about saying such.
Better still: where are the “transitional” species?
There are none even though the first one who finds it would be guaranteed the Nobel Prize and become a piece of history. It wasn’t for lack of trying or faking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.