What is conceded when the church compromises on Darwinian evolution?
I've been actively involved in the "creation/evolution" discussion for over 35 years. I have three degrees, two of which are in fields of science. I've done some writing in support of the young earth creation side, but I've also done a lot of reading about this issue. I've tried to find reliable information about both sides, reading books and articles written by creation scientists, as well as by evolutionary scientists. However, except for pastors like D. James Kennedy and Adrian Rogers, Bible teachers have tended to avoid taking a firm stand about origins or the idea of a worldwide flood or the age of the earth. I've known some excellent Bible teachers and scholars who absolutely defend the idea that God created the heavens and the earth and the Bible account of the Flood. However, a good many of them don't challenge the scientific position that all living things evolved from some kind of one-celled organism or that the earth is millions and millions of years old. Furthermore, some tend to have accepted a compromise position that Genesis and Darwinian evolution are not in conflict, with a few pastors actually celebrating Darwin Sunday. Recently, some well known and very credible theologians, including Dr. John McAuthor and Dr. Albert Mohler, have raised issues about what the church and the gospel is conceding in this kind of compromise. I, for one, am delighted that this issue is being raised. I'm wondering if any of the other members of this group have an opinion. If you're not familiar with the issues being raised, search for creation or evolution at albertmohler.com. The following link is more comprehensive:
Views: 8
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel Hefner on -
My husband is an MD, and believed in evolution and God/Jesus well into our marriage. The one argument he couldn't refute was that Adam brought death into the world through sin. You can't have millions and millions of years of evolution if death didn't happen until Adam, the first human, sinned.
So, I would have to say that the church has to compromise first on God's involvement with His creation and so much of His word dealing with the basic premise of salvation, that you are a sinner and will die as a result. If death happens anyway, then you're left with a great big hole in the plan of salvation.
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Reeves on -
Rachel Hefner said:My husband is an MD, and believed in evolution and God/Jesus well into our marriage. The one argument he couldn't refute was that Adam brought death into the world through sin. You can't have millions and millions of years of evolution if death didn't happen until Adam, the first human, sinned.
So, I would have to say that the church has to compromise first on God's involvement with His creation and so much of His word dealing with the basic premise of salvation, that you are a sinner and will die as a result. If death happens anyway, then you're left with a great big hole in the plan of salvation.
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Reeves on
-
Rachel, That is such a great point. My concern about this issue came from watching a TV program a few days ago. Someone was inteviewing 2 men (identities hidden) who were currently pastors in the south. They both began reading books by some of the new atheistics, like Richard Dawkins, to be in a better position defend the church's position about these ideas to their members. Instead, the pastors found themselves without an answer to their challenges. So, they are remaining in their positions as pastors, but no longer have confidence in the Bible or even in God. From the conversation, it seems that they were trying to reach a satisfactory theistic evolutionary position, but couldn't find one. It may be that they conceded too many Christian beliefs trying to find a way to integrate naturalistic evolution with their Christianity.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Byers on -
It seems to me that most, almost all, Evangelical preachers presume Genesis to be true. I see in canada some accept a old earth etc but once death has come then the count is just a few thousand years. Noah also accepted as true.
There is no need to for any compromise. These matters are about long and gone events and by definition everything must come from remaining evidence around us or a witness.
We have an excellent witness.
We have no problem with evidence around us.
Everything easily fits a YEC model.
Those who question genesis do it for no other reason then confidence in men's conclusions of past and gone events. They have no excuse to question genesis. They only know what those they trust tell them.
If they believe in scripture then simply believe it and wait for intelligent people to fill in details to confront opposing details.
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Reeves on
-
Robert Byers said:It seems to me that most, almost all, Evangelical preachers presume Genesis to be true. I see in canada some accept a old earth etc but once death has come then the count is just a few thousand years. Noah also accepted as true.
There is no need to for any compromise. These matters are about long and gone events and by definition everything must come from remaining evidence around us or a witness.
We have an excellent witness.
We have no problem with evidence around us.
Everything easily fits a YEC model.
Those who question genesis do it for no other reason then confidence in men's conclusions of past and gone events. They have no excuse to question genesis. They only know what those they trust tell them.
If they believe in scripture then simply believe it and wait for intelligent people to fill in details to confront opposing details.
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Reeves on
-
Robert, I'm actually someone who struggled with how to reconcile Genesis with evolutionary theory at one time, and I know many other who are still trying to do this. I also know many church leaders and seminary students who avoid this area except in broad general spiritual terms, because they don't quite know what to do with the scientific explanations for origins. Not being able to trust Genesis was a huge barrier to my personal salvation for many years. If Genesis can't be trusted, it's very hard to trust the rest of the Bible. Thankfully, today I can completely agree with your belief that everything fits into a young earth explanation. Although I believe the Biblical account of the Flood is completely accurate, I still find it strengthening to my faith to be able to give a completely logical explanation for the diversity of life on earth, trillions of fossils in sedimentary rocks, and widespread sedimentary layers around the earth that fits with the Genesis Flood account. The first thing people give up if they concede that Darwinian evolution is the correct explanation for the origin of life or that the Genesis Flood is a myth is a belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Byers on
-
Carolyn Reeves said:Robert, I'm actually someone who struggled with how to reconcile Genesis with evolutionary theory at one time, and I know many other who are still trying to do this. I also know many church leaders and seminary students who avoid this area except in broad general spiritual terms, because they don't quite know what to do with the scientific explanations for origins. Not being able to trust Genesis was a huge barrier to my personal salvation for many years. If Genesis can't be trusted, it's very hard to trust the rest of the Bible. Thankfully, today I can completely agree with your belief that everything fits into a young earth explanation. Although I believe the Biblical account of the Flood is completely accurate, I still find it strengthening to my faith to be able to give a completely logical explanation for the diversity of life on earth, trillions of fossils in sedimentary rocks, and widespread sedimentary layers around the earth that fits with the Genesis Flood account. The first thing people give up if they concede that Darwinian evolution is the correct explanation for the origin of life or that the Genesis Flood is a myth is a belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Interesting story. Its great that you have confidence in scripture and give your tour of duty and abilities to the advancement and , yes, conquest of the criticisms of genesis.
I would add more women indeed need to apply their abilities to this and not let the boys get lonely in the trenches.
Thank you for continued interest in creationism and pulled away by lifes other interests.
-
Permalink Reply by Rich Wendling on -
What is conceded? If evolution is true, then the Bible cannot be true. There are too many contradictions between the Bible and evolution. And, if the Bible is not true, then there is no basis for Christianity. If we simply "reinterpret" the Bible to incorporate evolution, we should logically also reinterpret to incorporate other "scientific" facts. For example, dead people do not rise from the dead; therefore, the resurrection could not have happened.
What is conceded is that mankind's wisdom and observations trump the Bible. The Bible is not truth; human understanding is truth.
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Reeves on
-
Rich, you get right to the heart of the matter. Does human wisdom trump the Bible?
Rich Wendling said:What is conceded? If evolution is true, then the Bible cannot be true. There are too many contradictions between the Bible and evolution. And, if the Bible is not true, then there is no basis for Christianity. If we simply "reinterpret" the Bible to incorporate evolution, we should logically also reinterpret to incorporate other "scientific" facts. For example, dead people do not rise from the dead; therefore, the resurrection could not have happened.
What is conceded is that mankind's wisdom and observations trump the Bible. The Bible is not truth; human understanding is truth.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Barnett on -
My best guess is that many/most pastors and bible "experts" avoid the scientific side of the argument simply because of the definitions the media and the general populase gives the terms. It's "Evolution and Creationism" implying one is a belief and the other not. Or "Scientific evolution and creationism" which of course equates science and evolution. Both are words used WAY too generally. I keep seeing phrases like "scientific evidence" or "scientists think". National Geographic,or was it Scientific Amercan?, once "apologized" for being biased against views other than evolution, saying things like "They dazzled us with their fancy fossils."
So fossils = evolution. Dinosaurs = evolution. The word science = evolution. Logic and reason = evolution, or at least atheism/humanism.
If all that is out there and the pastor learns that it's an extremely heated, controversial debate...is it any wonder so many avoid science?
The best solution seems, to me, to be working with that pastor. Introduce them to apologetics like AiG. Help them to understand how to spot the logical fallacies in evolutionary ideas and especially in the media and educational institutions. Show them how science, by it's core definition of "knowledge", actually supports what the Bible says, not what mainstream evolutionary theory says. Start a regular class or group that studies apologetics. Teach it to the deacons and sunday school teachers and volunteers. If they aren't prepared, what's going to happen when regular members or children or visitors bring it up? People need to be educated and there really are plenty of resources out there these days.
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Reeves on
-
Robert Barnett said:My best guess is that many/most pastors and bible "experts" avoid the scientific side of the argument simply because of the definitions the media and the general populase gives the terms. It's "Evolution and Creationism" implying one is a belief and the other not. Or "Scientific evolution and creationism" which of course equates science and evolution. Both are words used WAY too generally. I keep seeing phrases like "scientific evidence" or "scientists think". National Geographic,or was it Scientific Amercan?, once "apologized" for being biased against views other than evolution, saying things like "They dazzled us with their fancy fossils."
So fossils = evolution. Dinosaurs = evolution. The word science = evolution. Logic and reason = evolution, or at least atheism/humanism.
If all that is out there and the pastor learns that it's an extremely heated, controversial debate...is it any wonder so many avoid science?
The best solution seems, to me, to be working with that pastor. Introduce them to apologetics like AiG. Help them to understand how to spot the logical fallacies in evolutionary ideas and especially in the media and educational institutions. Show them how science, by it's core definition of "knowledge", actually supports what the Bible says, not what mainstream evolutionary theory says. Start a regular class or group that studies apologetics. Teach it to the deacons and sunday school teachers and volunteers. If they aren't prepared, what's going to happen when regular members or children or visitors bring it up? People need to be educated and there really are plenty of resources out there these days.
-
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Reeves on
-
Carolyn Reeves said:
Robert Barnett said:My best guess is that many/most pastors and bible "experts" avoid the scientific side of the argument simply because of the definitions the media and the general populase gives the terms. It's "Evolution and Creationism" implying one is a belief and the other not. Or "Scientific evolution and creationism" which of course equates science and evolution. Both are words used WAY too generally. I keep seeing phrases like "scientific evidence" or "scientists think". National Geographic,or was it Scientific Amercan?, once "apologized" for being biased against views other than evolution, saying things like "They dazzled us with their fancy fossils."
So fossils = evolution. Dinosaurs = evolution. The word science = evolution. Logic and reason = evolution, or at least atheism/humanism.
If all that is out there and the pastor learns that it's an extremely heated, controversial debate...is it any wonder so many avoid science?
The best solution seems, to me, to be working with that pastor. Introduce them to apologetics like AiG. Help them to understand how to spot the logical fallacies in evolutionary ideas and especially in the media and educational institutions. Show them how science, by it's core definition of "knowledge", actually supports what the Bible says, not what mainstream evolutionary theory says. Start a regular class or group that studies apologetics. Teach it to the deacons and sunday school teachers and volunteers. If they aren't prepared, what's going to happen when regular members or children or visitors bring it up? People need to be educated and there really are plenty of resources out there these days.
Robert, you're absolutely right, but there seems to be something that causes many church leaders to hold back on challenging the idea that all life arose from a common ancestor according to Darwinian evolution. I would love to teach a group of church leaders some basic information about why some scientists accept Darwinian evolution as truth and why they are wrong. Maybe I'll have a chance one day.
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
