I'm not close-minded about evolution Comments

The MatchMaker

Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:47:19 +0000

Excellent value driven article here. Tons of information. lumen intro

marcusgoodyear

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:31:56 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Becky and Tim. I agree that God created the universe, I just don't see that view as being incompatible with evolution. Tim, I've long admired Schaeffer's work. I'd suggest you read Francis Collins' The Language of God.

tim

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:54:05 +0000

i was going to say that but becky beat me to it! while evolution might seem a plausible theory on the surface the more you dig into the wonder of creation the harder it becomes to accept the sheer inconceivability of the randomness of creation just occurring. evolution cannot answer many many things. "science" also cannot answer many many things - eg the expanding universe, black holes and dark matter, multi dimensional concepts, the structure of time even, not too mention even the little things like the bombardier beetle. at he end of the day evolution is actually a straw man - a bad target to attack from a christian perspective because it is just a theory based on observation. creation also could be considered a theory based on observation. the science - testable hypotheses can be used to prove disprove either. what is actually at stake is humanity. the existence of personality, love, morality and other "abstract" concepts that require some external entity other than a mechanical naturalistic process to explain their existence. this is actually a philosophic process not a scientific one. reading Francis Schaeffers "the God who is there", "escape from reason", and "he is there and he is not silent" will help you realise this. once you come to the logical point that God must exist, created man for specific reasons,and then declared himself to man, then the problem of evolution or creation goes away. A literal 6 day Creation as explained in genesis must be the answer and the science will eventually prove it. in fact without this the point of christs incarnation and death and resurrection is actually unable to be explained. love to chat more - suggest you read those books first. also if you are interested in some serious flaws in evolutionary theory look in to cell structure and ATP and "junk" DNA.

Rebecca LuElla

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:26:46 +0000

Science by definition is the study of testable hypotheses. If something isn’t testable, it isn’t science. Period. Marcus, that's the problem I have. Evolution is not something conceived by the scientific method. It is a hypothesis developed from inferences drawn from observation, all of which must accept as true the impossibility of the miraculous. The debate, as I see it, is whether the starting point of the discussion about the origins of the universe includes or excludes God. I know there are now believers who ascribe to evolution, but it seems to me they are putting God in a box, saying He maybe started the process, but He had to work just this way. Interestingly, I think the six-day creationists do the same thing. Just this past week I did a couple posts on this subject. My conclusion (one of them, anyway ;-) ): That God created the universe is unequivocal and must be affirmed at every opportunity. How He created may be speculated upon as long as our speculations don’t discount or contradict Scripture. The mistake we make is in affirming a process we cannot know. Becky

marcusgoodyear

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:12:06 +0000

Thank you, Janine, for the book recommendation. I've heard about the book, but not picked it up yet.

Janine Ragan

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:13:36 +0000

I highly recommend reading "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza. He is humble, intelligent, studied, convincing - I am more open to Evolution than I was before reading this marvelous book, in which he makes the case that science and faith are compatible. In my opinion it is a must read for anyone who is preparing themselves to give a reason for the hope they have in Christ. Thanks for taking the risk and opening the discussion :)

marcusgoodyear

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:46:06 +0000

Ancoti, I thought about this a lot yesterday. I guess rhetorically I was adopting the position of the scientists. I tend to like measurable things. But really, I don’t understand their position either. If Darwinism or Evolution is so rock solid as a theory, then what’s the problem with the Texas Science Standards that require students to “evaluate a variety of fossil types, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits and assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of this fossil evidence.” That seems completely fair to me.

marcusgoodyear

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:48:06 +0000

That doesn't seem rambling to me at all, L.L. Makes good sense.

I guess I may be more mainline than I thought. Whatever that means.
________________________________________

marcusgoodyear

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:47:07 +0000

And peace to you, Ancoti.
________________________________________

Andy Coticchio

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:14:21 +0000

Grace is what we all need Marcus, and it is the wise person who asks for it. Peace brother.

L.L. Barkat

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:06:00 +0000

Well... so do I hear you saying you just want to understand why evolution feels like a threatening idea? (You do seem genuinely perplexed.) Personally, I am terribly behind on all the arguments this way and that on both sides. And I tire of this particular issue because I have rarely seen a true dialog, where each side looks at the other and says, "Hmmm... they're smart, they're earnest, they're creative, they're searching." This lack of respect is what tires me. So I spend my time thinking about other things. On another note, I think one thing is particularly important... and that is how our worldview affects the way we live. If either our theology or our science leads to a lack of compassion and a subversion of justice, we need to consider trading it in (maybe not converting to "the other side" but at least reshaping the side we're on). Okay, I'm starting to ramble now. See? I told you this makes me tired. : )

marcusgoodyear

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:17:07 +0000

No question, that I’ve got lots of issues, Ancoti. I can only pray for grace.

Andy Coticchio

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:12:34 +0000

OK. I do not have the issue you do. I am comfortable using Genesis to argue against evolution as I do not take it as a theological document, but as a document that speaks the truth. I also agree that evangelicals should not feel evolution threatens their worldview. if you hold your beliefs as truth given to you by God, why let something threaten that? I can disagree with someone without feeling threatened by them.

marcusgoodyear

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:40:07 +0000

I’m certainly not placing my faith in evolution, if that’s what you mean. And I’m not a scientist myself. But based on the information I’ve read, evolution seems the most plausible explanation for what scientists are finding through DNA research, biology, carbon dating systems, etc.

However, I wouldn’t be upset if scientists change their mind 50 years from now based on some new evidence or new understanding. I admit the idea of statistical analysis of randomness sounds neat, but I would have no way of understanding if such a line of inquiry has any substance.

I certainly think it is a mistake to argue against evolution (a scientific theory) using Genesis (a theological work) as a source text. I wouldn’t say that evolution and Genesis are at odds with each other, any more than I think science and religion are at odds with each other. But I do think theology and science are different ways of knowing.

Mostly, I just really don’t understand why many evangelicals feel that evolution threatens their worldview.

Andy Coticchio

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:26:12 +0000

Marcus: I respect your opinion although I guess I am in the majority evangelical camp. But as I read through this post, i get the sense that your position is not all that firm to begin with, that you could be convinced with some further discussion. Am I reading you wrong?