God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. – Paul C. Broun, Republican congressman from Georgia from 2007 to 2015, House Science Committee, in a speech given at Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet on September 27, 2012
You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution. – Richard Dawkins
Most of us would probably be hesitant to endorse either of the views expressed above. But is there some midpoint where the lamb of biblical creation and the lion of evolution can snuggle comfortably?
The subject of the origin and development of life in all its diversity tends to provoke impassioned responses. For example, running this subject past the other contributors to this website generated 58 emails in just two days; the next runner-up generated only 26 over a period of 22 days. In all those emails, we did not arrive at a consensus view other than that God created all things. Somehow.[1]
Though “God created everything” may seem hopelessly vague, it is certainly the most important point. God can create anything he wants, any way he wants. We can speculate, we can opine, but there are limits to what we can reasonably assert. So we must remain open to possibilities that we haven’t considered, or perhaps even some that we’ve already rejected. We should not allow ourselves to be badgered or pigeon-holed by statements such as the quotes that kick off this article.
But doesn’t God’s Word at least limit the number of possibilities we should consider? Can a Christian accept the theory of evolution? On the other hand, can an intelligent, informed person reject evolution? Let’s see if we can approach this subject without prior prejudice, while sacrificing neither reason nor respect for our Creator and his word.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day. (NET)
We have quite a bit of wiggle room when it comes to time, if we wish to avail ourselves of it. First, there is the possibility that the statement, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is separate from the creative days, which would allow for the possibility of a 13 billion year old universe[2]. Second there is the possibility that the creative days are not 24 hour days, but periods of indeterminate length. Third, there is the possibility that they overlap, or that there are spaces of time – once again, of indeterminate length – in between them[3]. So, it is possible to read Genesis 1 and come to more than one conclusion about the age of the universe, the Earth and life on Earth. With a minimum of interpretation, we could find no conflict between Genesis 1 and the timetable that represents the scientific consensus. But does the account of the creation of terrestrial life also give us wiggle room to believe in evolution?
Before we answer that, we need to define what we mean by evolution, since the term in this context has several meanings. Let’s focus on two:
- Change over time in living things. For example, trilobites in the Cambrian but not in the Jurassic; dinosaurs in the Jurassic but not in the present; rabbits in the present, but not in the Jurassic or Cambrian.
- The undirected (by intelligence) process of genetic variation and natural selection by which all living things are thought to have descended from a common ancestor. This process is also called Neo-Darwinian Evolution (NDE). NDE is often broken down into micro-evolution (like finch beak variation or bacterial resistance to drugs) and macro-evolution (like going from a quadruped to a whale)[4].
As you can see, there is little to take issue with in definition #1. Definition #2, on the other hand, is where the hackles of the faithful sometimes rise. Even so, not all Christians have a problem with NDE, and some of those who do will accept common descent. Are you confused yet?
Most of those who wish to reconcile their view of science and their Christian faith fall into one of the following belief categories:
- Theistic Evolution (TE)[5]: God front-loaded the necessary and sufficient conditions for the eventual appearance of life into the universe at its creation. TE advocates accept NDE. As Darrell Falk of biologos.org puts it, “Natural processes are a manifestation of God’s ongoing presence in the universe. The Intelligence in which I as a Christian believe, has been built into the system from the beginning, and it is realized through God’s ongoing activity which is manifest through the natural laws.”
- Intelligent Design (ID): The universe and life on Earth give evidence of intelligent causation. While not all ID proponents are Christians, those that are generally believe that the origin of life, along with some major events in the history of life, like the Cambrian Explosion, represent increases in information inexplicable without an intelligent cause. ID proponents reject NDE as inadequate to explain the origin of new biological information. According to the Discovery Institute’s official definition, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
There is, of course, considerable variation in individual belief. Some believe that God created the first living organism with sufficient information (a genetic tool kit) to later evolve into all other types of organisms without divine intervention. This, of course, would be a feat of programming rather than NDE. Some ID proponents accept universal common descent, taking issue only with the mechanism of NDE. Space does not allow discussing all possible viewpoints, so I will restrict myself to the general overview above. Readers should feel free to share their own viewpoints in the comments section.
How do those who accept NDE harmonize their view with the Genesis account? How, for example, do they get around the phrase “according to their kinds”?
The book LIFE—HOW DID IT GET HERE? BY EVOLUTION OR BY CREATION?, chap. 8 pp. 107-108 par. 23, states:
Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another.
It would appear from the use of cats, dogs and humans that the authors understand “kinds” to be equivalent, at least roughly, to “species”. The genetic constraints on variation that the authors mention are real, but can we be absolutely sure that the Genesis “kind” is that restricted? Consider the order of taxonomic classification:
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.[6]
To which classification, then, does Genesis refer? For that matter, is the phrase “according to their kinds” really meant as a scientific pronouncement delimiting the reproductive possibilities of living organisms? Does it really rule out the possibility that things reproduce according to their kinds while gradually evolving – over millions of years – into new kinds? One forum contributor was emphatic that, if scripture does not give us a clear basis for an unequivocal “no”, we should be extremely hesitant to rule those things out ourselves.
At this point the reader may wonder if we are giving ourselves so generous a dollop of interpretive license that we are rendering the divinely inspired record virtually meaningless. It’s a valid concern. However, we likely have already given ourselves some interpretive freedom when it comes to understanding the length of the creative days, the meaning of the earth’s “socket pedestals” and the appearance of “luminaries” on the fourth creative day. We need to ask ourselves if we are guilty of a double standard if we insist on a hyper-literal interpretation of the word “kinds”.
Having posited, then, that scripture is not quite as restrictive as we may have thought, let’s have a look at some of the beliefs that have thus far been mentioned, but this time in the light of science and logic[7].
Neo-Darwinian Evolution: While this is still the most popular view among scientists (especially those who wish to keep their jobs), it has a problem that is increasingly recognized even by scientists who are not religious: Its variation/selection mechanism is unable to generate new genetic information. In none of the classic examples of NDE in action – variation in beak size or moth coloration, or bacterial resistance to drugs, for a few examples – is anything truly new generated. Scientists who refuse to consider the possibility of intelligent origination find themselves casting around for a new, and thus far elusive, mechanism for evolution while provisionally maintaining belief in undirected evolution on faith that such a mechanism is, indeed, forthcoming[8].
Theistic Evolution: To me, this option represents the worst of both worlds. Since theistic evolutionists believe that God, after creating the universe, took his hands off the wheel, so to speak, they believe that life’s appearance on earth and subsequent evolution were both undirected by God. Therefore, they find themselves in exactly the same predicament as atheists in having to explain the origin and subsequent diversification of life on Earth in terms of chance and natural law alone. And since they accept NDE, they inherit all its deficiencies. Meanwhile, God sits idly by the sidelines.
Intelligent Design: To me, this represents the most logical conclusion: That life on this planet, with its complex, information-driven systems, could only be the product of a designing intelligence, and that the subsequent diversification was due to periodic infusions of information into the biosphere, such as at the Cambrian Explosion. True, this view does not – in fact, cannot – identify the designer, but it provides a strong scientific element in a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
As I mentioned at the outset, when the contributors to this forum originally discussed this subject, we were unable to form a consensus view. I was initially a bit shocked at that, but have come to think that’s as it should be. The scriptures are simply not specific enough to allow us the luxury of dogmatism. Christian theistic evolutionist Darrel Falk stated with regard to his intellectual adversaries in the faith that “many of them share my faith, a faith firmly grounded not just in polite interchange, but outright love”. If we believe that we were created by God and that Christ gave his life as a ransom so that we might have everlasting life as children of God, intellectual differences on how we were created need not divide us. Our faith is, after all, ‘grounded in outright love’. And we all know where that came from.
______________________________________________________________________
[1] To give credit where credit is due, much of what follows is a distillation of the thoughts exchanged in that thread.
[2] This article uses the American billion: 1,000,000,000.
[3] For a detailed consideration of the creative days, I recommend Seven Days That Divide the World, by John Lennox.
[4] Some evolution proponents take issue with the micro- and macro- prefixes, contending that macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution “writ large”. To understand why they don’t have a point, see here.
[5] TE as I’ve described it here (the term is sometimes used differently) is well illustrated by Francisco Ayala’s position in this debate (transcript here). Incidentally, ID is well described by William Lane Craig in the same debate.
[6] Wikipedia helpfully tells us that this ranking system can be remembered by the mnemonic “Do Kings Play Chess On Fine Glass Sets?”
[7] In the next three paragraphs I speak only for myself.
[8] For an example, see here.
Has anyone ever been an eyewitness to evolution? I think not because evolution supposedly occurred millions of years ago. Has anyone seen “natural selection” take place? Yes, every day. Charles Darwin did not need to go to the Galapagos Islands to prove natural selection. The experiments he made in his garden at home were sufficient to prove natural selection’s existence. We as humans even fight natural selection every day because natural selection is a threat to our existence as well. What is my point? Natural selection is fact, evolution is still a theory in my opinion.
Its the same old story with this question .most of us would have to admit , we are not scientists . We have not seen personally scientific proof for evolution . It would take a trained scientific mind to even understand what a scientist is talking about . I was speaking to my friend about this subject the other night he says he cannot believe in god . It doesnt make sense to him because he has been in the army and seen the atrocities commited by men toward others and thinks that most wars are caused by religion by… Read more »
Evolution cannot be proven. It has to be accepted on faith, just as the existence of an intelligent creator has to be accepted on faith. Biologists like to say they have a lot of proof, because certain bone fragments seem similar to others from the past, or because much of the animal kingdom today has similar structures and systems. This can just as easily be because a creator liked the idea of creating a great deal of variety utilizing similar forms, like variations on a common theme. No one can prove this isn’t the reason, and to prove something is… Read more »
In 1971 I decided to get baptized at a district assembly at the age of 9 years old. My faith in the creation story was absolute, and interestingly enough, I also had an abiding interest in science. I was an avid reading of the scientific literature in the Awake magazine, National Geographics and any news articles I could acquire about the Apollo missions. In fifth grade I absorbed scientific facts and theories like a sponge. My curiosity about how the world worked was insatiable. My science teacher enjoyed having me in the classroom because I was always an enthusiastic student.… Read more »
Thank you, SoT, for sharing your experience with us. I think most of us here feel regret for having believed and preached things that we now feel are false. We are in a constant process of improving our ‘power of reason’ and ‘making our minds over’. There are a few things you mentioned, though, that I have to take issue with: JWs have never taught that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that the sun was created after the earth. Also, the characterization of religion – especially Christianity – as eternal enemy of science may be popular… Read more »
For anyone interested, Reasons to Believe is an excellent science based ministry for harmonizing science and scripture (NOT Young Earth!!!) Since Creation and the Bible are both God’s books, they should harmonize if we are reading them correctly. Chris brought up a point I was thinking also about the chronology of Adam that is addressed in this article at Reasons to Believe, the short version being that the genealogies are incomplete so we should not base a chronology on them. http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-does-the-gobekli-tepe-site-contradict-the-biblical-account-of-man
Hi Andere, Thank you for your fine essay. One of the most difficult molecular obstacles for the reigning paradigm is to show how new protein encoding functions endorse survivability and reproduction without simultaneously requiring new protein decoding receptors. That information responsible for the phylogenetic change of existing organisms, as well as the morphogenesis of new ones, can in any significant way credit a biological system is patently absurd – at least, not without corresponding and equally sophisticated decoding routines. Unfortunately, this bootstrapping conundrum hinders the standard Darwinian synthesis from every quadrant and has rendered it more of an amateur mind-game… Read more »
I believe you have something important to convey to us. If you could rephrase this in more accessible language, you would reach a larger audience with your insights.
Hahaha yes . Thanks vox ratio . If you can just take it down a notch to CSE grade 3 english i may be able to understand . What your on about hahaha .
Hi Anonymous, Apologies. I’ve been steeped in the literature of this debate for years and its probably wearing off on me now. The particular issue that I was driving at is that encoded functional information must be decoded prior to any occurrence of phenotypic variation (alterations within an organisms phenotype). However, “new” encoded functional information not only has be decoded, but it also must be interpreted. What this means is that new information requires interpretation before any selective advantage can be granted. But alas, since new information requires a new interpreter, and a new interpreter requires new information – which… Read more »
Vox, here are some words and expressions you used: phylogenetic morphogenesis protein decoding receptors bootstrapping conundrum standard Darwinian synthesis encoded functional information assemblage of functional information into the biosphere And then there’s this mouthful: blind evolution is capable of understanding the semiotic content of encoded information and can decipher it purposefully Huh? I am sure there is something really useful being discussed, but I can’t for the life of me understand what that is. You need to restructure this in a way that does not presuppose your readers are experts in molecular biology, but just interested bystanders in the creation/evolution… Read more »
Of course, we could also take this as an opportunity to enrich our vocabulary by making use of one of the many online resources–dictionaries and what not–that the information age has made so readily available. 🙂
Really. If you cant’ talk plain English here! I don’t come here to improve my vocabulary that’s demeaning and observed to suggest.
I pass over all of Vox’s comments for that very reason. I not impressed with how educated someone seems to be. I can only conclude we would all be dead meat if Jesus spoke that way. I could go on about how well meaning everyone is in the spirit of love, but, sorry that kind WT condescension gets my hackles up.
With all due respect. JJ
Hi JJ, In our previous exchanges I understood you to be someone who knew what they believed and why they believed it. You made a credible case for your arguments, were engaged, and interacted substantively with what I had to say. Even though we didn’t end up agreeing on everything, it seemed to me that our conversations were cordial and even ultimately edifying. However, given your recent admission that you “pass over” all of my comments now, perhaps I was alone in my thinking on this. Of course, you are free to read whatever you wish – that’s one of… Read more »
At the end of the day we are all different . I say thanks for the insight vox .
I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing wrong with being conversant in basic scientific vocabulary. It could potentially add credibility to an argument (so long as it’s used correctly).
Hi Anonymous, I’ve taken on board your recommendations. Thanks for the feedback. I was putting together a brief to explain some of the verbiage that gets tossed around within the Darwin camp when it occurred to me that this situation is a real-world example of precisely the issue I’ve been attempting to (unsuccessfully) explain. Namely, that new functional information (that which conveys meaning through function) from one source can never be understood by a receptor without first being decoded and then interpreted purposively. If intelligent agents cannot successfully work with uninterpreted information, what chance does blind evolution have? Really, that… Read more »
Alright, let me try to interpret this, and you tell me if I have it right. (And, bear with me; my understanding of DNA etc. is very limited.) If some biological molecule (DNA, RNA, protein or other) were to change (presumably, mutate into a more complex form) such that there was more ‘information’ encoded within the molecule, it would mean the chemical had new, improved ‘design features’ that it didn’t previously have. If that chemical were simply a “stand-alone” substance that could operate independently of other substances in a living cell, then such changes would be fine. But, the fact… Read more »
Hi Anonymous,
Nice! I couldn’t have said it any better (and obviously didn’t) myself.
Great illustrations too. I hope you won’t mind if I steal them 😉
If they are of any help, steal away :-))
I am not a Christian but I stumbled on this site because of the topic.I have a degree in science and majored in biology. I want to say I really enjoyed the conversation between TRA and Vox. What a nice way to break down the information. We that know this information don’t realize that most people are not aware of the special language we use to describe biological events. I am going to apply what you all just did and learn to explain scientific information in a way that people without any knowledge of science can understand. I believe that… Read more »
Nicely put!
I was discussing this with another brother the other day. I said that if God Created Adam 6000 years ago according to Biblical Chronology and there are remains of humans from 30,000 years ago then that means death existed before Adam sinned and that Adam wasn’t the first man to live.
But question. How do we view the remains of skulls that are so different looking than what we have today? Nutrition? Natural selection.
I have often considered the possibility that the Neanderthals were in fact the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis. What do we know about the Nephilim? They were the hybrid offspring of materialized angels and humans. The name purportedly means, ‘those who cause others to fall down’; in other words, bullies. That is borne out by the fact that the pre-Flood world is described as very violent. This makes sense; if an angel were to materialize as a human with the intent of “taking over”, they would appear in a physically superior form. Neanderthal skeletons show them to have larger skulls than… Read more »
Sounds legit. I watched a science video recently said that if humans had lived longer there would be protrusions of the eye bones in the brow. Well if humans had hundred of years of life spans then there is the cause of the facial features we see in the Neanderthals.
There is an awesome video about 2 hours called 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. It’s hilarious. Just YouTube it.
Everything you propose may well be the case. However if Neanderthals were the result of the liaison between humans and the demons, but lived 30,000 years ago where does this leave us regarding bible chronology. If they lived before Adam, then how could he have been the first man? And, as Christopher questions if they lived and died before Adam, they must have died before him. Yet the bible lays the guilt of introducing death squarely on Adam’s shoulders. What am I missing here?
I would have to emphasize that this is all speculation, of course, but the key is in Genesis. It says these event happened after Adam but before the flood. How can that be, if the Neanderthals are 30,000 years old? The answer is, they’re not that old. How can we reconcile the time difference? First, the various methods for dating are not as accurate as we might imagine. But second, and more importantly, if we accept the Genesis account that there was a water canopy over the earth, that canopy would have provided an excellent radiation shield for the earth,… Read more »
Regarding the “Canopy” theory. Just FYI. 🙂
http://www.reasons.org/articles/let-us-reason-raining-on-a-misconception
Thanks for sharing that, Susan.
There are a lot of angles to consider, right? 🙂
I note you quote from the Creation book. That book contains a number of ‘quotes’ by scientists that have been tampered with to suit the author’s bias- Richard Dawkins himself is misquoted terribly. One ‘authority’ they quote several times is Francis Hitching. A quick google search reveals him to be a charlatan. In my opinion, the Creation book is totally discredited as a book to quote from. Unfortunately, WT publications are full of misquotes from scientists and historians- it seems that they will resort to this to ‘prove’ their point on any given subject. They know most JWs will not… Read more »
The origin of and subsequent diversification of life really are two separate issues, though people on both sides of the issue often blur the distinction. My apologies if I didn’t make that clear. Abiogenesis, we’re told (by that most trustworthy of sources, Wikipedia), “is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds”. So it’s not so much “how life started” as the idea that life came from non-life without the aid of a creator. Needless to say, it has yet to be demonstrated as even remotely possible. With regard to the Creation book quote,… Read more »
Much could also be said on the topic of “irreducible complexity”. This subject is often responded to with scorn by evolutionists, no doubt because it isn’t a frivolous argument and can’t be easily dismissed. I feel this argument has considerable merit. Take two examples. We have an elaborate system for blood clotting. Clotting prevents an injury from resulting in massive blood loss and death. It is thus extremely valuable – indeed, life-saving. It’s so valuable, it’s hard to imagine living without it. But, imagine it we must, if we evolved, because surely there had to be a point in our… Read more »
I love this topic, if you bring this up with a Elder or a CO or a guardian of Doctrine person, ….expect to get a solar system to get dropped on your head… ( PS I am pretty sure that makes no sense), but yes I believe in creation like the bible says, but we all know the Bible is silent on a whole lot of matters. Now i do believe we all evolve overtime, I mean I seen Jurassic park and the whole birds are from the dinosaur lineage, and looks all of us grow and evolve over time,… Read more »
1874. 😉
My friend 1874, is his second presence but 1878 is when he was king why 4 year wait, who knows…but remember my friend Old Light always changes….Right!
😉
Fantastic article Andere, a very logical and succinct overview. Evolution is one of the issues I wrestled with as a young man, especially as I had an atheist (alcoholic) father and was raised on a diet of David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins. There are many reasons that I don’t believe in evolution and do believe in Intelligent Design, which I could write a book on, but I’m sure have all been covered in debates and far more authoritative works elsewhere. What I keep coming back to though is the origin of genetic diversity. Where did it all come from if… Read more »
The phenomenon of features that evolution ‘discovered’ more than once has been dubbed “convergent evolution” by the faithful. That evolution could ever get us an eye is wildly fantastic enough, but that it could do it several different times – often using nearly identical genes in the process – is truly unbelievable. On the other hand, common design explains it quite well.
I applaud you for trying to tackle such a divisive topic among a group that primarily consists of theistic thinkers. But somewhat related to this topic is something that is near and dear to my heart. One of the things that I saw you struggle with in your article was how the words of the Bible constrain your thoughts and possibilities on the subject of evolution. But what if we go deeper than that. Have we considered the possibility that those very words could’ve been corrupted? What if the constraints we have to work with in regards to the Bible… Read more »
I agree with you Anonymous, we need to explore further the topic written by Andere and the Documentary Hypothesis. We do not have to be afraid of these topics as truth can stand up to critical examination. Thank you to all involved for allowing this topic to be discussed.
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m personally leery of the slippery slope of picking and choosing what’s inspired and what’s not. And of course, the question of who got their creation story from whom can go both ways: maybe the Babylonian account is just the biblical account passed down to them through less reliable sources. Still, I agree that the questions raised by the first several chapters of Genesis shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed through blind faith.
It’s true that it could go both ways. But the thing that I have trouble reconcialing is that the Enuma Elish pre-dates our earliest biblical manuscripts that we have (Dead Sea Scrolls). So looking at the evidence available, we have no physical evidence that the biblical manuscripts were written before the Enuma Elish, or other earlier creation accounts. It’s possible that they could’ve been, but we have no evidence for it, unfortunately. The other problem I have with the creation story in Genesis is that there appear to be two creation stories, as scholars have pointed out. The creation story… Read more »
Here’s a twist: Revelation 13:8. This verse talks about the Lamb having been “slain from the founding of the world”. The Greek literally reads “founding of the cosmos.” Could the energy expended by the Big Bang have been that of the Lamb, literally being slain as the universe was brought into existence? Romans 6:10 and 1 Peter 3:8 both show that Christ died once, but only in relation to sins. Could Christ have died previously, specifically at the founding of the cosmos? After all, ‘all things were created by him in the heavens and on the earth.’ (Col 1:16) Even… Read more »
Indeed a controversial topic. I believe that some evolution or mutation does not disregard creation. The question: was the origin a creator or an explosion? As I think an explosion never brings good things, I go for a Creator. But in His wisdom, a Creator can give the creation flexibility to adapt. White or dark skin, tall or small, etc but internally all the same. Same with animals. the principle is always the same: you need one to produce seed and one to grow the seed to reproduce. That is the principle. But like cocktails, one can mix and adapt.… Read more »
Quite right Menrov. In denying that unguided evolution is responsible for all biological diversity, it is all too easy to swing to the other extreme and argue that every single organism on Earth was designed as is by the Creator. Surely, life adapts to some extent, although I would argue that it’s more the result of programmed flexibility than the mutation/selection mechanism of NDE.
Thanx AS. Something here I can agree with. “Surely, life adapts to some extent, although I would argue that it’s more the result of programmed flexibility than the mutation/selection mechanism of NDE” That’s were the wonder is and Gods greatness of mind. The atheistic scientists should studying how the gene switches work. Tiger sanders can change in one generation from harmless mud eaters to cannibals with veracious appetites and huge teeth. The trigger? Drought. But only 50% hatch into cannibal monsters. They survive the drought and the next generation revert back to harmless scum eaters. All hale Gods Greatness. Please… Read more »
That should read Tiger salamanders.
JJ
I’m surprised that any of the contributors on this forum would venture into this topic, one so fraught with ‘landmines’, so to speak. People have strong feelings about this. One reason that should be obvious to most readers of this forum is that, if evolution were true, that would seem to invalidate their religious beliefs. If God didn’t create us, then either there is no God, or there might as well be none. Where does that leave our beliefs, and our hopes for the future, not to mention the hopes of all generations that have gone in ages past? I… Read more »
Yeah TRA the evolutionary scientists seem to follow the pattern of the watchtower society with new light popping up now and again . Haha . Why are all these people so desperate to convince us of thier latest theories . I once saw a debate with richard dawkins on this subject and to be honest he seemed alot more reasonable than the so called creationists on the other side . They were just abusive ! It was awful . I got the impression that he was more against organised religion than anything else . So no wonder he was abused… Read more »
I completely agree. It makes me laugh when scientists discover another piece of the evolutionary jigsaw and then redraw their theories. I understand that the search for truth is a process – a work in progress which requires many missteps – but they like to present their new findings as proof while conveniently dismissing their old equally forceful assertions with a wave of the hand and carefully couched words – “oh we used to BELIEVE this, but now we KNOW that…” etc. etc. Yesterday’s facts are today’s fish and chips wrapping paper. And of course Watchtower does exactly the same,… Read more »
A thought that I have, that I find scary, is of the possibility of a time in the future, when the Angels show themselves, and I have to decide about of who among them is my maker! I think though that the bad sides offering of fake Jesus s would have the character of non ability to supply care for my needs, including the need to understand and as well as to be healthy. Whilst the good Jesus would direct His Angels extraordinarily and outstandingly well for my needs. But if I was not looking for Jesus like a detective… Read more »
TRA- I must say that your comment was the most encouraging and sensible thing I have heard in a long time regarding this subject. I understand people’s concern about this subject. But if we try so hard to make what scientists say fit the Bible, we really have added to His word and have made it invalid.
Thanks for the kind words. I find it hard to reconcile the idea of being a Christian with believing in evolution. If Adam evolved, and if thus he is not the first man, for whose sin did Christ die? If Adam evolved, could Adam even be guilty of “sin” in the biblical sense? After all, how could he be viewed as a sinner, if his only shortcoming was of not yet being evolved to his ultimate potential? Could he really be blamed or held guilty if the evolutionary process, presumably incomplete, left him less than “perfect’? And if Adam was,… Read more »
True, I had this discussion who was an ex-extreme Muslim, who now is an atheist, because of all the atrocities he witnessed by his own people: therefore no God, is now a professor in biology, his convinced that evolution exist today? How by experiments in his lab. We talked about survival of the fittest. We suggested that, seeing we’ve progressed so far in human evolution, why are people lame blind, missing limbs etc, we suggested that to move forward in evolution, we should kill all those who are defective including young, he rejected that idea as these ones are value… Read more »