Melanie and I have been having good discussion over the issue of evolution after my last post regarding Emergence. I realize that this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people and I am excited to hear your thoughts on it! Check out our discussion below and lets continue the dialog in the replies.Saturday, October 18, 2008
Melanie and I have been having good discussion over the issue of evolution after my last post regarding Emergence. I realize that this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people and I am excited to hear your thoughts on it! Check out our discussion below and lets continue the dialog in the replies.
9 comments:
-
Jecca said...
-
I agree with Melanie. Evolution makes absolutely no sense.
Having said that, with respect and curiousity, I'm wondering why it makes sense to you, Jacob? How do human souls fit into this ape-to-man theory? Did the apes have souls but weren't aware of morality enough to sin and therefore didn't need God's atonement until they became human? And how could a human, who is much more advanced than an animal in great ways, come from something much less advanced/intelligent? I don't really see a pattern in the world of things naturally mutating to become greater, but mutating in the way of deformation. Also, how would you interpret Genesis 1 and 2? Have you read "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati by any chance?
Lots of questions lol I hope this hasn't come off too pointed...I really just want to know your thoughts because these are some of the things that don't make sense in my mind. -
October 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM
-
David said...
-
Evolution is of no consequence in terms of the spiritual. The debates on this topic (within the Christian community) is akin to arguing what mountain one thinks Abraham brought Isaac to in order to sacrifice him. Evolution, whether it's the truth or not bears no influence, or should bear no influence on one's decision to be a Christian. Belief in God should not be required to stand up to qualifications based on human rationale and scientific evidence. If something as monumental and difficult as application of Faith depends on something as finite as a scientific theory, then I would argue that your faith is resting upon a tragic dependence on your own rationale in understanding the finite, and the design and intent of God, which is a lofty task. It is such an annoying aspect of the Church, their "up in arms" response to anything that challenges, or attempts to open the door to the mere possibility of a history of the world that doesn't explicitly align itself with the Bible. All of this fuss of "The DaVinci Code" was ridiculous. If Jesus had "relations" with Mary, would it alter your faith? And in this same way, evolution does not present any threat to my own salvation. I think that if faith is based on anything which relies on the external, it will quickly fall apart. Is one to have faith in the story of God, or God himself? Faith is intrinsically married to absurdity.
-
October 18, 2008 at 11:30 PM
-
Melanie said...
-
To some extent, I agree with you about evolution, David. I just find it interesting to see that there are different models for how the earth came into being.
One thing to consider that science cannot measure.. if the earth was created wouldn't it by necessity have the appearance of age? If Adam was created from the dust of the earth as a man, when he was 1 day old, he might appear 30. That is why science and scripture sometimes have a difficult time jiving. If the Bible is true, then science will always be missing something - something immeasurable. If God did not create Adam as stated in Genesis, then I would most likely feel that there was a God, but it would by necessity change something about my view of Him.
As for The DaVinci Code, that is a far different matter. There are so many historical flaws that it is really a moot point. And if Mary did have relations with Jesus it would totally change who he represented himself to be, and so it would by necessity change my faith to some extent, not necessarily in God, but in Jesus. How could it not? At the very least, if they were not married at the time, it would make him the world's largest hypocrite and quite probably a liar. It would change who HE is.
As for the flap about TDVC, I found some of the discussions interesting. Maybe that is the good thing about it.
It's rather changing topics, though.
I also do not see faith as being tied in with the absurd. That is not how it is definied within Christianity, at least. Can it be? Yes. Is it automaticaly? No.
It may sometimes be tied in with things we cannot yet see. That doesn't automatically make them absurd. -
October 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM
-
David said...
-
I must disagree, I do believe that committing your life to something you cannot see nor can completely understand could be defined as "absurd". Although, I am not criticizing those who chose to do so, but I am questioning the "faith" which many claim to have, as I question my own. Melanie, you've read my other post, so I think you know what I'm getting at. Although, on the topic of Evolution, I still believe it to be inconsequential. Will a discovery of the missing link provide the breaking point of your faith? Will alternative histories of God and Christ motivate you to think other wise? Can your faith be moved? I would say that, upon discovery of some new evidence that would continue to champion the theory of evolution, it should not change your faith, and that is why it is absurd. It remains unchanged in a forever changing temporal world, yet, that which you have faith in is not even full grasped.
-
October 19, 2008 at 9:13 PM
-
Amber said...
-
Man I love your conversations, because I actually see it from both ways. I have yet to decide, and probably never will considering I wasn't there in the beginning, and all I have is God and His Word.
I think that God did create the world in the pattern His Word suggests, but believe He could have done it in an evolutionary form (there are many similarities, i did a personal study on it). God can do anything! Sure, it's amazing if God just spoke everything into being by "zapping" them there, but could that also mean as He spoke each thing into being, it could have evolved from a previous "thing"? I think it is more amazing if He did!
But the thousands of years vs billions of years argument aggravates me sometimes. I trust carbon dating to a certain point, but I don't think scientists consider enough factors when doing so... However, I don't know enough on the issue to use that in a discussion. I will say billions of years sounds too long, but we have to remember that to God there was no time, so maybe He didn't factor in "time" until the earth reached a certain point... I kind of see it as similar to a toy maker who made a mechanical walking dog or something. Once he is satisfied with the assembly, he lets it walk, but whenever the dog gets close to hitting something, the toy maker turns it in another direction. Before he let the dog walk on its own, it was his hands doing all the forming and moving of pieces, nothing else. But once he let go, the parts of the dog were what moved it. Not that the world is heading toward an object, but God "let go" and let His creation move on its own while He intervenes and is at all times involved with us. When God "let go," so to speak, may perhaps be when time began? Perhaps that is why "billions" of years is used to describe the age of the universe, simply because it seems like that to scientists. Yet if you think about it, I'm sure looking back to a "time" when there was "no time", it may look like billions of years.
I think that makes sense :P I'll probably regret trying to put that into words after I click "publish your comment." -
October 22, 2008 at 6:22 PM
-
Melanie said...
-
Hmmm... perhaps I was a little misunderstood. I said that if the Da Vinci code were correct it would have to change my faith as it would change who I believe Christ to be, which is essential to that same faith. (I believe it's likely a moot point since the book was so full of historical inaccuracies.) As for evolution, if it is true, it may affect my view of God, but it will not drastically change my faith.
I do think I know what you mean, although I think "absurd" is perhaps too strong a word for what you are saying. There are a lot of things I know that exist that I do not completely understand and cannot see, because I see evidence of them (like the wind) but it isn't absurd to believe it exists. Likewise, I see what to me is evidence of God's existence. It makes the most sense to me, so I don't consider it absurd. Some things I believe may seem improbable. I will give you that much. LOL ;) -
October 28, 2008 at 4:11 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
This is a very interesting conversation, and one that has been on my mind for a while now.
There are theories that say that the 7-day creation presented in the Bible is an allegory. Day, in the context of which it is used, is merely a division of time, rather than a 24-hour period. And if you use God's perspective of Creation, which is Genesis 1, then the process of creation mirrors the order of emergence in evolution. The first 3 days are an establishment of the universe, and the division of light and darkness, heavens and earth, and land and sea, along with the creation of vegetation. The next three days shows the creation of the heavenly bodies, then fish and birds, and then man and creatures of the land. It is amazing to me that evolutionary theory and the order of creation mirrors each other so well, especially after 4,000 years of translating and passing the story down, from old Hebrew to modern English.
This does bring some discrepancies in the theories though. Evolutionary scientists believe that humans as they are today have been around for 35,000 years, and the bible only shows 41 generations of man between Abraham and Christ. Now, this could be explained by the Great Flood, and that man could've been around for that long. But I'm not exactly sure of those details.
Without going so deep into it, in short, I'm saying that I can see the merit of created evolution, and that God created everything that populates the Earth, but in an evolutionary process. I am not cementing this into my faith, but it is a very rational explanation.
More research must be done by me into this before I go any further. -
October 28, 2008 at 11:36 AM
-
Ethan said...
-
The Language of God is a really good book. I haven't bought it but every time I go into my local Olive Branch I check it out.
I have some problems with evolutionary theory, but they are scientific, not spiritual. I guess I would count myself as an old-earth Creationist.
The funny thing is, sometimes people paint evolution as an atheistic theory. In reality, it is so impossible for those changes to happen over time without guidance by some sort of Deity that it actually makes God necessary. -
October 28, 2008 at 10:18 PM
-
Melanie said...
-
I just read Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati on my flight back from Florida. I thought it was a very good book.
-
November 3, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought a lot of the book made sense, and a lot of it didn't. It was quite obvious reading that he believed strongly in evolution. I will have to go through my notes (if I can find them these days) and discuss this with you sometime.
He brings up some interesting things as well. He seems to see his "emergence" theories as proof that there is not God or that God is not necessary.
It would be interesting to hear him speak, though.
October 12, 2008 7:40 PM
Hi Melanie, I appreciate your posts :)
Some time ago I posted about a guy named Francis Collins and his book called "The Language of God."
He is the guy that headed up the Human Genome Project and the book discusses his transformation from an atheist to a person of faith in God. But he also has a lot of stuff to say about Christian's rejecting evolution and why that is both unnecessary and damaging to our cause.
I grew up in a home that still teaches against evolution. My mom and dad have raised me to appreciate science and love the mysteries that God has crafted into our beautiful universe. But they shut down every time scientific discussion speaks of "millions of years ago..."
I hit a wall during the making of Singularity where I was unable to deny it anymore. My perspective shifted and I actually began to see evolution as the creative process of God. Instead of trying to wrap the evidence around my beliefs I wanted to actually see what was really going on and what that could tell me about the God I love. When faced with issues and topics that challenge our faith we can either trust that God's plan is bigger than our understanding or we can retreat into our own understanding as a buffer from reality. I am afraid that is the place that many Christians have chosen to live. I would love to devote more time to this issue because I think it is important. I guess a good place to start is with a question. Is your faith is contingent on the existence of evolution. Why or why not?
October 13, 2008 11:16 AM
Rats! I posted a response, and I have a feeling it didn't go through. My apologies if this duplicates anything.
Strangely enough, I recently pulled out Francis Collins' book to read soon. I found it a long while ago on clearance and picked it up.
It's funny to me that you have come to the conclusion, with study, that evolution is undeniable, while I went rather the opposite direction. My parents were a self-proclaimed athiest and agnostic. I do believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution. As for the earth and things in it being millions of years old (which was what used to be said, now it's billions - who knew I was that old?) The truth is when it comes to the age of the universe, I don't think any time frame we have can account for it. I am curious now to see what Mr. Collins says.
I have to wonder why God would create taking millions/billions of years. Seven days, I can see a reason behind, as a pattern. But millions of years? Why?
You asked if my faith was contingent on the existence of evolution and the answer is quite obviously that it is not. God is God regardless of whatever creative process he uses or has used, however, and with or without evolution, my faith would not be swayed on that basis. Evolution from what I can see, just makes no real sense to me. I don't see one species evolving into another, among other things at least not without redefining species.
Anyway, I said this far better the first time around or at least I think I did. LOL
October 14, 2008 11:02 AM
Thank you for that response Melanie, I know how frustrating it is to invest time into creating a good thought and having it disappear! My favorite part about this response is that your faith is not dependent on creation vs evolution. I have heard many people hinge their entire belief system on that issue and I am baffled by that.
It is also quite interesting to think about the way our paths have unfolded in relation to our parents. An initial reaction might be to think that we are both rebels but I believe there is more too it than that ;)
To me, the search for scientific truth represents a fundamentally different approach to understanding reality than does faith or philosophy or art. It encourages disproof. A good theory must stand the rigors of the entire community using the tools of elegant mathematical expression and experimental observation. If you are presenting a theory, you expect it to be ripped apart. It will be ripped apart many times throughout time as our understanding and our technology grows. This is the march of scientific progress. It leaves a wake of discarded older models behind it. Newton, Einstein, Bohr, all had ways of showing us the world and none of them were complete. They each gave us a stepping stone on the unending march of questions that we walk as a conscious species. Their answers enabled new thoughts but they weren't designed to be the END of thoughts.
Clearly there are answers that we are not yet aware of to questions that puzzle us about our universe. The realm of science is to assume nothing and proceed as if we can only trust that which we can prove. That is the only way it can work. This obviously presents a conflict of intention with those of us who believe in a creative and loving God.
Einstein said it best when he said, "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
October 14, 2008 1:23 PM
I think the great disadvantage of science is that it can only prove what is directly observed or can be duplicated. The origins of the universe will never fit into that category. One cannot disprove some things, nor can they be proven. Science nearly by necessity discounts God in the equation. The only problem is that if God was part of the equation, leaving him out would be akin to holding down the 7 on a calculator and still expecting for the answers to be correct.
"Einstein said it best when he said, 'The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.'"
And sometimes one of the truths of God is that he is incomprehensible. How can the finite comprehend the infinite?
But to me, only God makes sense.
October 14, 2008 10:04 PM
See, now I see that as its great advantage. There are limits to what it can speak to. But what it does speak to, it is careful to say the right thing. And when it is wrong, science is the first to admit it. When Einstein's theory of relativity overthrew the Newtonian worldview that all the world was so comfortable with, the world was told because it would result in a deeper understanding of the truth of our reality. Sadly, the history of the church is full of many missed opportunities to champion these truths until it is too late. Think about Galileo and story of heliocentrism. Only recently has the Catholic Church recanted its handling of such atrocities. The dangerous trend I see in the church as a whole is that we tend to lean too strongly on our own understanding. There are many amazing and confusing things about our universe and science should be viewed as ally in the search for Truth. Even when the results don't seem to connect with our understanding we can acknowledge that there is much to still be understood :)
You had mentioned earlier that evolution made no sense and that a 7 day pattern made sense but I would suggest that God is a God of process and that evolution is a perfect picture of that process.
October 15, 2008 8:55 AM
Actually, I think both the church and science have been guilty of suppressing the truth. I will give this some thought. But science has been wrong plenty of times, and the church has been far from perfect - at least in this world.
Regardless, some things cannot be proven or disproven with science. A lot of times with science the data is unbiased, but the interpretation of data is not. At least that is my personal observation, especially when it comes to statistics.
"I would suggest that God is a God of process and that evolution is a perfect picture of that process."
I can see your point there to a point. LOL
"Even when the results don't seem to connect with our understanding we can acknowledge that there is much to still be understood :)"
I can definitely agree to this wholeheartedly. :)
The more information we have, sometimes the more evident it becomes how limited our knowledge truly is.
--Melanie