# Creationist theism and athiestic evolution



## Jon 316 (Feb 14, 2009)

I was invited to hear a free church of Scotland minister debate on evolution, atheism and Dawkins a few nights ago. I think the guys name was David Robertson or something like that.

Anyway, he sought to refute Dawkins. I liked some of his approach. However he does embrace both evolution and creation. i.e God used evolution to create the world. 

Now it seems to me that 

1) Evolution is taught as true 
2) To believe otherwise on the account of scripture is as thought to be as stupid as believing in fairies.
3) To believe otherwise based on scientific appeals (i.e Ken Ham) is to be considered a lunatic.

So the only option, it would seem, for thinking Christians, is to accept evolution as the means by which God created the world. 

hmmmm

I have a problem, I am an educated person (I think), I do not understand all the facts about evolution. But I do reject it because 

1) I do not think Genesis one is only a myth ( i guess I see it as literal)
2) Evolution is only a theory
3) Why would I change my view of the bible based on an unproven theory of godless men?
4) It is not only the fact that I believe the literal account in genesis happened but that those accounts have huge theological significance tied to them. 
1) Man is seperate from the animals (Image of God)
2) No death pre-fall (survival of fittest does not fit with the creation story at all) etc 

hmmm

Anyone here more clued up than I on this area got any insights?


----------



## discipulo (Feb 14, 2009)

Evolution is a religion, a false religion that man invented in his sinful rebellion against God. 

_Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the Glory of the uncorruptible God *into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things*._ Romans 1:21-23

emphasis added


----------



## beej6 (Feb 14, 2009)

Evolution as intraspecies differentiation ("after its own kind") is fine.
Evolution as creation is anti-Christian. Could God "use" evolution to create? Far be it from me to limit God in that way. But God certainly doesn't need to, He is The Creator, and did so simply by his Word, "God said."


----------



## discipulo (Feb 14, 2009)

beej6 said:


> Evolution as intraspecies differentiation ("after its own kind") is fine.
> Evolution as creation is anti-Christian. Could God "use" evolution to create? Far be it from me to limit God in that way. But God certainly doesn't need to, He is The Creator, and did so simply by his Word, "God said."



When micro evolution is mentioned I find it always quite deceitful.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but in fact, even intraspecies changes are always God’s creation in every single gene and chromosome and cell, because He continues to create and sustain His creation.

Just check the verbal tenses in the passage.

_Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure *they are and were created*. _Revelation 4:11

emphasis added

Our God is not the Theism clockwork maker that left things to work by themselves. Our is the Living Sovereign Sustaining God


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 14, 2009)

beej6 said:


> Evolution as intraspecies differentiation ("after its own kind") is fine.
> Evolution as creation is anti-Christian. Could God "use" evolution to create? Far be it from me to limit God in that way. But God certainly doesn't need to, He is The Creator, and did so simply by his Word, "God said."



Speciation happens. It is observed in nature today, but on an incredibly small scale. Evolution, as a theory in an of itself, is perfectly fine. The problems arise when you extrapolate evolutionary principles to say all life on earth came from a few molecules in a primordial soup. That is where they transform legit science into religion and faith. 

So I always contend evolutionary principles are fine, and are designed by God. But when they are misapplied it leads to all sorts of problems.


----------



## TimV (Feb 14, 2009)

> 1) Evolution is taught as true
> 2) To believe otherwise on the account of scripture is as thought to be as stupid as believing in fairies.
> 3) To believe otherwise based on scientific appeals (i.e Ken Ham) is to be considered a lunatic.
> 
> So the only option, it would seem, for thinking Christians, is to accept evolution as the means by which God created the world.



You sure hit that nail on the head, John. The last sermon on this "Framework hypothesis" I heard came across exactly the same way. "Of course it's obvious to anyone with a brain that Genesis is contradictory, so let's just call it metaphorical so we can still seem sophisticated to people who are still going to despise us anyway".


----------



## discipulo (Feb 14, 2009)

TimV said:


> > 1) Evolution is taught as true
> > 2) To believe otherwise on the account of scripture is as thought to be as stupid as believing in fairies.
> > 3) To believe otherwise based on scientific appeals (i.e Ken Ham) is to be considered a lunatic.
> >
> ...



Tim, there are many Scientists who believe in a literary interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and in 6 days Creationism.

I know personal a few PHds that stand for it, one is a University Professor of Biochemistry. Phd by Utrecht Univ. Holland

Genesis may not be a scientific manual, how could it be? But is not a poetic mythic metaphor either!!!

Take a look at Fred Hoyle - Intelligent Universe, a non believing scholar who ridicules evolution, without no aprioristic metaphysic belief.


----------



## TimV (Feb 14, 2009)

Hi Cesar

It's a language nuance deal. I'm agreeing with John in my own little way.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 14, 2009)

TimV said:


> Hi Cesar
> 
> It's a language nuance deal. I'm agreeing with John in my own little way.



Sure, sorry if I misunderstood you.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 14, 2009)

> When micro evolution is mentioned I find it always quite deceitful.
> 
> I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but in fact, even intraspecies changes are always God’s creation in every single gene and chromosome and cell, because He continues to create and sustain His creation.
> 
> Just check the verbal tenses in the passage.



Aren't these small changes within a species called micro mutations? I don't see these as part of evolution at all, but rather, as you say, part of God's sustaining power and care over His creation. 

The suvival of the species concept which is a huge part of evolutionary is anti-scriptural and for that reason, it shouldn't be mixed with creationism.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 14, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> > When micro evolution is mentioned I find it always quite deceitful.
> >
> > I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but in fact, even intraspecies changes are always God’s creation in every single gene and chromosome and cell, because He continues to create and sustain His creation.
> >
> ...



My Intelligent Designs knowledge is mostly applied on Buildings 

But, yes, there are mostly mutations, but they are wrongly included in an evolutionistic frame. 

so wikipedia says:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies (a proportion measure of relative frequency) in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, artificial selection, gene flow and genetic drift.


----------



## Zenas (Feb 14, 2009)

If you accept theistic evolution you therefore naturally reject:

Original sin.
Adam as a historical figure.
The lineage of the Jews. (Which therefore throws your understanding of the OT out of whack.)
The protoevangelion. 
The parts of the NT that reference Adam because he was a fictional character.
Our need for Christ and moral culpability to God.

Evolution and Theistic Creation, (Christianity) are fundamentally juxtaposed. Evolution is based on naturalism and materialism that rejects the immaterial and supernatural at a presuppositional level, seeking to explain _everything_ by material or naturalistic means. Theistic Creationism is based on the idea that the material is _explained_ by the immaterial, as the immaterial created it. 

Naturalism puts man and his understanding at the center of the Universe. We are all that is, all that has been, and all that will ever be. Theistic Creationism states that we were made, and that there is something that exists outside of space and time that created us. 

The two models hold nothing in common with each other.


----------



## Jon 316 (Feb 14, 2009)

> So I always contend evolutionary principles are fine, and are designed by God. But when they are misapplied it leads to all sorts of problems.



could you explain what you mean by this in more detail?

thanks


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 17, 2009)

Jon 316 said:


> > So I always contend evolutionary principles are fine, and are designed by God. But when they are misapplied it leads to all sorts of problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The mechanisms of evolution and survival, some of which are listed by discipulo, are clearly observed in nature. These processes are used by God to amplify the diversity of His Creation and maintain survival of species and organisms that otherwise could not survive. To reject the concept of "natural selection" for example (as I've seen some well-meaning Christians do) is the same as to deny the sky is blue or that rain comes from clouds - it's to deny what is plainly obvious in nature. 

But where atheistic evolutionists err is in using evolutionary mechanisms to explain the existence of all creation. They basically wave the magic wand of time over micro-evolution to discount the existence of God by saying that these principles alone led to the biosphere as we know it. This is the worst kind of science because it takes drastic leaps of faith to believe such an idea with so many gaps and inconsistencies. Rather than using what is observed to develop hypotheses, they develop a theory then use what is observed to support it. 

I had an agnostic biochemistry teacher who believed in evolution to explain existence as we know it, but felt there were major problems in the theory that scientists were intellectually dishonest to blindly accept. Chief among these is the "creation" of bio-molecular substrates from carbon-based molecules and lightning. The odds of creating an in tact bio-molecule (such as a single DNA nucleotide) by these means is almost infinitely remote. His belief was that there had to be some other mechanism for the development of the initial bio-molecules, but at this point humans have no idea what it is. 

To me it is much easier to believe God created the cosmos _ex nihilo_ than trust in a highly flawed, highly speculative theory than misapplies legitimate scientific principles.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2009)

TimV said:


> > 1) Evolution is taught as true
> > 2) To believe otherwise on the account of scripture is as thought to be as stupid as believing in fairies.
> > 3) To believe otherwise based on scientific appeals (i.e Ken Ham) is to be considered a lunatic.
> >
> ...



 and


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2009)

The problem with "theistic evolution" is that we are assigning the activity of God to the gaps in our scientific "knowledge". This is a ridiculous enterprise that puts Christians who hold this idea up for ridicule every time science comes up with a new theory that seeks to explain what these theistic evolutionists previously said was unexplainable.

The Bible, on the other hand, says that we do have certain knowledge that God created life and ordered it by His will into the division of life that we know today. In the end, I'd rather rest on the assertions of Scripture than any dead man's theory.


----------



## Jon 316 (Feb 17, 2009)

> The mechanisms of evolution and survival, some of which are listed by discipulo, are clearly observed in nature. These processes are used by God to amplify the diversity of His Creation and maintain survival of species and organisms that otherwise could not survive. To reject the concept of "natural selection" for example (as I've seen some well-meaning Christians do) is the same as to deny the sky is blue or that rain comes from clouds - it's to deny what is plainly obvious in nature.
> 
> But where atheistic evolutionists err is in using evolutionary mechanisms to explain the existence of all creation. They basically wave the magic wand of time over micro-evolution to discount the existence of God by saying that these principles alone led to the biosphere as we know it. This is the worst kind of science because it takes drastic leaps of faith to believe such an idea with so many gaps and inconsistencies. Rather than using what is observed to develop hypotheses, they develop a theory then use what is observed to support it.
> 
> ...



cool, where would be a good place to learn more about this stuff?

Would you endorse ken ham answers in genesis? 

is natural selection a post fall process?


----------



## Denton Elliott (Feb 17, 2009)

discipulo said:


> Evolution is a religion, a false religion that man invented in his sinful rebellion against God.
> 
> _Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the Glory of the uncorruptible God *into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things*._ Romans 1:21-23
> 
> emphasis added



Amen! This is what I always say to people, "Romans 1 explains the reason for the fairy tale of evolution..."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2009)

Doug Kelly has an excellent book called "Creation and Change" (one that changed my mind) that you can get here.


----------

