How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

[trey4sports]

Stephen Hawking isn't a biologist. Just saying.

no, but but discussing the idea that life originated elsewhere and was brought here via asteroid is within the realm of cosmology as well as biology.

 

[TheViper]

So do you believe we live in a geocentric universe, or a heliocentric universe? Those are your only two options.
Oh, and bear in mind that publicly doubting the heliocentric theory means you're going to lose your funding. Also remember that most of the time evidence in favor of a geocentric universe is not going to be taken seriously enough even to shoot it down.

We don't live in either universe. We do live in a heliocentric solar system. But universe? No.

If you are trying to discredit scientific study because it changes theory based on new information then I'd say your trying to clean a window with muddy water. The whole nature of science is that it is open to new data and the redevelopment of new ideas based on the new data.

And for the record, we've known the sun as at the center of the solar system long before Copernicus gave us the mathematical facts to back it up. It's just the dissemination of information back then was difficult unless you had the backing of the dominant religion of the time.

Hey, there's this remote possibility that someone could start collecting hard data at some point, and come up with a bulletproof third theory of elliptical orbits... but you know, we kind of like the people who have to come rearrange the museum displays every two years because we jumbled all the facts to fit the heliocentric narrative again, so let's not pursue that particular avenue.

Did you just suggest scientists don't pursue new theories because they are lazy?

The Miller-Urey experiment conclusively showed that Earth's (conjectured) early atmosphere could have produced amino acids.
This supposedly led to the formation of life.

That's like saying six consecutive meteor strikes on the same bed of clay could conceivably form a single brick... so the Great Wall of China was therefore built spontaneously.

Only I'm pretty sure my analogy is actually understating the complexity of the matter.

Even better, let's smash 2 rocks together to see how they were formed instead of, you know, building particle accelerators. If the complexity alludes you, don't assume it's inaccurate.

There is this expanding earth (edit: not universe but it's still a function of expansion) theory. The only problem is carbon dating, but I think even that is being called in to question.

So my preserved bones are going to expand as the universe stretches out "relative" to its infinite starting point. So in 6000 years, by 2 foot long humorous bone doubles with the stretching of the universe. The life force works against this stretching so that when something is "alive" our perception is still tied to the infinite.

There is more to it obviously and it's certainly not proven, any more than the big bang is proven, but it makes for interesting research.

(Edit: There is the time aspect as stretching out too, which I am not getting into but it's all relative etc..)

Let me get this straight. You believe that 'dinosaur' bones are actually just regular animal bones that have 'doubled' in size over 6,000 years because they "expanded after death"?

You sir, just won the cake.

I suppose that we have to ignore molecular density and just assume the expansion of solids wouldn't become a gas at the lower density or become so brittle they'd crumble like ash (instead of petrify)?

Read the Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It may not convince you, but it will make you think about evolution in a different light.

PM me if you have a Kindle. I may be able to loan you mine if that option is available for that book.

Read it. A good friend of mine sent it to me several years back. Unfortunately, at his expense, it failed to convince me at all. The irreducible complexity theory doesn't work at all. Yes, you can only reduce a functioning mouse trap so far but the components of the mouse trap can create lesser complex things as you reduce the complexity.

Other examples given in the book were even more dubious and largely left me questioning the credibility of some of the sources the author used.

 

[oyarde]

Because only the ones who didn't die survived. Do you consider that maybe it happened in reverse order? That is, only those with valves were able to lean down, and only those were able to later acquire (inherit, preserve) longer necks?

They are fascinating.

 

[jmdrake]

Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of scriptures. Evolution can be part of a bigger plan.

You run into all sorts of problems theologically if you don't take a literal view of Genesis, though.

Yep. The problem theologically is that if man is "evolving upward" then what does he need a savior for? Jesus died to save us from our what exactly? For instance it's a sin to commit adultery. But for many in the animal kingdom having multiple partners is simply a way to ensure genetic diversity. Honor your father and your mother? If the law of the pack is the strongest male takes the herd even if that means killing off dad? You can go right down the list. Morality doesn't always equal survival of the fittest. And yes, I know there are Christians who get angry when you point this out and claim you're "forcing your view" of Christianity on them blah blah whatever. But the fact is that other religions simply fit evolution better than Christianity. Hinduism comes immediately to mind.

 

[onlyrp]

no, but but discussing the idea that life originated elsewhere and was brought here via asteroid is within the realm of cosmology as well as biology.

either case would require evidence, and how life originates/originated wouldn't change the theory of how life evolved with the evidence we have thus far.

 

[onlyrp]

Yep. The problem theologically is that if man is "evolving upward" then what does he need a savior for?

What does "evolve upward" have to do with "needing a Savior because you are not perfect by God's standards"?

 

[squarepusher]

 

[James Madison]

God created this Universe to conquer sin. Therefore, He let sin into the Universe and used natural selection, along with occasional Divine Providence, to prepare the Creation for the appearance of man. Likewise, man needed to evolve in order to survive. If man was created perfect he would have no need for the biological systems required for survival and so after the fall his fate would have been a swift death. In a perfect world, evolution would no longer be necessary because we would no longer need to compete for limited resources and fight off infections. That's why Jesus's message was absolute selflessness. It wasn't just altruism, it was darwinian suicide. Jesus was made for a perfect world and His message of helping others, humbling oneself, and giving complete submission to God makes little sense in light of natural selection, even examples of 'altruism' we see from other species. In short, evolution was the only way for God to conquer sin without sin destroying His Creation (and His highest Creation, mankind).

 

[MaxPower]

Yep. The problem theologically is that if man is "evolving upward" then what does he need a savior for? Jesus died to save us from our what exactly? For instance it's a sin to commit adultery. But for many in the animal kingdom having multiple partners is simply a way to ensure genetic diversity. Honor your father and your mother? If the law of the pack is the strongest male takes the herd even if that means killing off dad? You can go right down the list. Morality doesn't always equal survival of the fittest. And yes, I know there are Christians who get angry when you point this out and claim you're "forcing your view" of Christianity on them blah blah whatever. But the fact is that other religions simply fit evolution better than Christianity. Hinduism comes immediately to mind.

This is only the case if we take "biological success strategy" to be synonymous with "moral imperative;" stating that "Evolution progresses through survival of the fittest" is not at all the same as saying, "Therefore, the morally correct decision is the one which is most successful on an evolutionary level." Christianity has taught from the start that worldly success is not the highest end, that Christians should renounce "survival of the fittest" even if it means that they will be in some ways "beaten" by those who devote themselves strictly to worldly success. Surviving, achieving social dominance, mating, and bringing forth offspring were already seen as signs of earthly success long before they were understood as contributing to a process called "evolution," and Christians were already taught to renounce those things to the extent that they interfered with their spiritual salvation.

 

[eduardo89]

One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.

 

[otherone]

Polar bears aren't white. Their hair is actually clear.

 

[hazek]

One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.

Just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. Do you even realize how many species have gone extinct so far in our planet's history?

I already posted this video and I'll do it again, if you watch it you'll get a pretty good explanation for how organisms evolve and why:

 

[onlyrp]

One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.

This goes to show, unless you are sarcastic, how little you know about biology. Are you seriously telling me you believe polar bears are a distinct created species with no common ancestry with other bears? It works like this, polar bears might've either started out as albinos, or lighter shades, and the lighter the shade, the more likely it'll survive. So as soon as white bears came out, they were the most fit, the less fit colors are eliminated in the polar regions. You might as well ask why are there monkeys with no tails, and monkeys with tails, no half tails.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.

Because these in-between transitional organisms would be eliminated when a more efficient species is produced. Polar Bears are actually closely related to Grizzlies, so much that they are still known to breed with each other in the wild. So what would need to happen is a few Grizzlies colonizing the Arctic and discovering a new seal-hunting niche. The bears with light fur would have a huge advantage over the darker ones, as seals would mistake them for snow or ice. Their whole method of hunting pinnipeds is sneaking up on them and hoping they won't take notice, afterall. Once the first true Polar Bears came along, they could easily out compete any darker cousin in the region.

 

[eduardo89]

lol people taking my polar bear post seriously.

 

[wannaberocker]

Both ideas require a certain amount of "Faith". What often bugged me about evolutionist was their claim that "Science Proves" evolution. When in reality "Science" points to some aspects that could be explained by the theory of evolution. While "Science" also points to some points that some aspects that seem centered in a creator.

Iv been a massive fan of John Lennox and love listening to him. He does make some great points...



In this lecture Professor Lennox deals with the claims of Stephen Hawking and discussed God's footing in the world of science.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of scriptures. Evolution can be part of a bigger plan.

Yeah but why? Why did God go through all the trouble allowing life to evolve for billions of years? From a single cell in the Ocean to land animals? It just seems like evolution is inherently anti-Christian.

 

[James Madison]

Yeah but why? Why did God go through all the trouble allowing life to evolve for billions of years? From a single cell in the Ocean to land animals? It just seems like evolution is inherently anti-Christian.

Read my earlier post in this thread. Evolution allows life to survive in a fallen world. Without it, sin would destroy the Creation.

 

[The Mad Arab]

Some people's way of thinking hasn't evolved yet. They're afraid if they think outside the old religious box, they're turning their backs on it and the traditions of their families. I think it's unnatural to be so closed-minded and I would imagine God would want people to use the gift of thought, not confine it to only one way.

 

[robert9712000]

Because these in-between transitional organisms would be eliminated when a more efficient species is produced. Polar Bears are actually closely related to Grizzlies, so much that they are still known to breed with each other in the wild. So what would need to happen is a few Grizzlies colonizing the Arctic and discovering a new seal-hunting niche. The bears with light fur would have a huge advantage over the darker ones, as seals would mistake them for snow or ice. Their whole method of hunting pinnipeds is sneaking up on them and hoping they won't take notice, afterall. Once the first true Polar Bears came along, they could easily out compete any darker cousin in the region.

Heres the Flaw i see in this argument.You say the white colored bear went from being the rarity to the dominant species because it was more efficient.The common reasoning of survival of the fittest.

The problem though is the grizzly while not as efficient would still be able to survive long enough to breed,else if it was so inefficient the population would die of that generation.Since obviously it didn't die off and was able to survive long enough to reproduce how does a rarity become the dominant?If its able to reproduce still, it then by that reasoning concludes that some rare mutations can become the majority. That just doesnt make sense.As long as the species can still breed i find it impossible for the rarity to become the dominant even if it is more efficient.The only factor that makes your argument believable is if it couldn't breed,else the rarity would just become diluted into being a rare abnormality in a population of Grizzly's.

Heres an example.Its like saying if a Irish Man moves to the middle east even though hes the minority he could eventually become the dominant trait in the middle east and all Arabs would eventually have red hair and be pale complected .You'll say that's silly because hair and skin color have nothing to do with survivability but im saying its the same thing, because neither the white fur or the red haired Irish man change the fact that the Arab and the Grizzly can still breed .Since they can they are still and always will be the minority.So to me, logic would say the abnormality of the red haired Irish in a middle east country as well as a white bear amongst grizzly's would become diluted to the point of insignificance in a sea of standard existing traits.

Just like the Irish Man's descendants might occasionally have red hair,for the most part they'd have black hair and be darker skinned.The same thing for the Polar Bear.There may occasionally be one ,but for the most part if that was how it came to be it would still be a rarity.