All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?
Some say it is, others say it isn't. I say not a chance.
I think R.C. Sproul said it best:
"First of all, it's not compatible with the Bible. Second of all, it's not compatible with science. ... Keep in mind, a question of the origin of life is not, in its final analysis, a biological question; it's a historical question. Biologists can pitch in by looking at the structures of cells and that sort of thing, but they can't really tell you how it started."
Here is Charles Hodge's classic work, "What is Darwinism?":
http://books.google.com/books?id=XZqr...
Views: 338
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on
-
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
"That's what I was taught in my high school biology class." God forgive us for our irresponsibility. Many of the parents undoubtedly felt they had countered this teaching. Fortunately for these students, they had Sproul as a teacher. They are in the minority - not in the majority. Many, even Christian universities would agree with the student's position that evolution was a viable explanation for origins. No way is macro evolution compatible with Scripture. They are opposed to one another. One may be correct or the other but no way could both be correct. They are not compatible.
-
-
These is what some scientist believe and are saying:
-
-
If you listened to this, you have witnessed firsthand the philosophy behind the university teachings in our nation's classrooms. These minds are depraved. That wouldn't be so bad if they were isolated but they are not. This is the predominant theory that controls our classrooms.
Isa 6:9-10
9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
"'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed." NIV2 Th 2:9-12
9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. NIV2 Pe 2:1-3
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. NIVLk 17:1-3
17 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 So watch yourselves. NIVRo 1:28
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. NIVHow did we fall so far that we have now turned our schools over to such as these? Lord, forgive us and redeem us for we are losing our children.
-
-
All Truth Is God’s Truth
by R.C. Sproul
Few books I have read have made a lasting impression on my mind and thought. One of them I read over fifty years ago. The title of the book was The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, and it made a lasting impression upon me because it clearly set forth the importance of understanding that all scientific theories presuppose certain philosophical premises. The philosophical premises that are the underpinning of scientific inquiry are often taken for granted and never given even a cursory exploration. But in a time when fierce debate rages between science and theology, it is important that we step back and ask questions about the pre-scientific theoretical foundations for the whole enterprise of knowledge.
The word science means “knowledge.” We tend to have a restricted view of the word as if knowledge only applies to the realm of empirical investigation. Besides material knowledge, we also have to take into account formal truth. In this regard we must consider mathematics as a genuine science, because math in its formal dimension yields real knowledge. In fact, if we look at the history of scientific progress, we see that the engine that has driven new breakthroughs and brought to bear new paradigms has more often than not been the engine of formal mathematics. But it is astonishing to see how frequently people engaged in material scientific research glibly pass over the philosophical presuppositions of their own work.
In Carl Sagan’s famous book entitled Cosmos, based on his television series of the same title, he makes the following statement: “Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. It is, in a way, the opposite of chaos. It implies the deep interconnectedness of all things.” In this seemingly harmless definition of the entire structure of Sagan’s work, he assumes that the universe under investigation by science is a cosmos rather than a chaos. He speaks of cosmos “implying a deep interconnectedness of all things.” This is the grand presupposition of scientific inquiry, namely, that the universe we are seeking to know is coherent. There is an implied deep and profound interconnectedness of all things. The alternative to cosmos, as Sagan has indicated, is chaos. If the universe is at root chaotic, then the whole scientific enterprise collapses. If the universe is chaotic and disconnected, then no knowledge is possible at all. Even discreet bits of atomic data cannot be understood within the framework of utter chaos, so the presupposition of a coherent, rational order of all things is the screaming presupposition of scientists.
This idea of an assumed coherency has its roots in ancient philosophical inquiry. Ancient Greeks, for example, sought ultimate reality. They sought a foundational principle for unity that would make sense out of diversity. This ultimate unity is what the science of theology provides. The science of theology provides the necessary presupposition for modern science. This is precisely the point that led prominent philosopher Antony Flew to his conversion from atheism to deism — namely, the essential necessity of a coherent foundation to reality to make any knowledge possible. This ultimate coherency cannot be provided by the contingency of this world. It requires a transcendent order.
In the Middle Ages, a crisis ensued in the realm of philosophy with the revival of what Muslim thinkers called “integral Aristotelianism.” In their attempt to achieve a synthesis between Aristotelian philosophy and Muslim theology, these thinkers produced a concept called the “double-truth theory.” The double-truth theory argued that what was true in religion could be false in science, and what was true in science could at the same time be false in religion. To translate that into contemporary categories, it would go something like this: As a Christian, one could believe that the universe came into being through the purposive act of a divine Creator while at the same time believing that the universe emerged gratuitously as a cosmic accident. These two truths examined by logic would appear to be contradictory. Nevertheless, the double-truth theory would say that truth is contradictory, and one could hold these contradictory ideas at the same time. This kind of intellectual schizophrenia rules the day in our own time where people think that God had nothing to do with the formation of the cosmos from Monday to Saturday only to become creationists on Sunday, failing to see that the two concepts are utterly irreconcilable.
At this point, the question is raised, “Well, does logic really count in our attempt to understand reality?” Again, if we’re going to assume coherency and cosmos, logic has to count not just for something but for everything. Thomas Aquinas responded to the Aristotelianism of the medieval Muslim philosophers by replacing double truths with the concept of mixed articles, distinguishing nature and grace (not dividing them, as many of his critics allege). Aquinas said that there are certain truths that can be known through special revelation that are not discerned from investigation of the natural world, while at the same time there are certain truths learned from the study of nature that are not found, for example, in the Bible. One does not find the circulatory system of the human body clearly set forth in Scripture. What Aquinas was saying was that there are certain truths that are mixed articles, truths that can be known either from the Bible or by a study of nature. Among those mixed articles, he included the knowledge of the existence of a Creator.
The fundamental point, of course, that Aquinas was arguing, in agreement with his famous predecessor, Augustine, was that all truth is God’s truth, and that all truth meets at the top. If science contradicts religion, or if religion contradicts science, at least one of them must be wrong. There have been times in history where the scientific community has corrected not the Bible but poor interpretations of the Bible, as we saw in the Galileo scandal. On the other hand, biblical revelation can act as intellectual brakes upon scientific theories that are groundless. In any case, if knowledge is possible, what Sagan assumed must continue to be assumed — namely, that for truth to be known, for science to be possible, there must be a coherent reality that we are seeking to know.
-
-
-
-
Roy and family -
The scientists working on keeping Evolution alive and well are getting very good. I am studying this series and finding ways to debunk it.
-
-
-
-
My reaction to the first of the videos is that their reasoning for thinking the soft tissue and blood cells are impossible is because they put the age of the dinosaur bone at 68 million years old. Their reasoning for such a claim is called circular reasoning. They really have no idea whatsoever how old that bone really is. They create aging measurements and then when they discover they aging measurements are wrong they seek alternative explanations. The truth - those dinosaur bones are probably much younger than they suppose. Was there truly a behemoth in the time of Job? If so, that has only been a few thousand years ago making these ideas on this video nonsense.
-
-
So, how does this information affect the believer? Does he start shaking in his boots? I am amused how far the science world will go to attempt to substantiate their theories to debunk Scripture. It is not funny, however. The Bible tells us that those who refuse to acknowledge their Creator do not have a pretty future.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
David I think this is a great discussion. We as Christians should be knowledgable about science. I am not a scientist or even well educated but I do know that in order for anything to the called science it must go through the scientific method. Testable, observable, and repeatable. I would like to see one of the guys use the scientific method on creation. They were not there. They can not, so they have a belief. I have a belief in the beginning God.
allaboutGod.com has some good stuff in this area as well.
I think you are on a great study. We can quote the Bible and that is enoough for us, however there is a lost world and scientific arguments might bring some people to faith.
One of those fellows made light of people who believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. At the river in Glenrose Texas has dinosaur foot prints and human foot prints in the same rock. Pretty good indication that they walked on earth at the same time.
Those scientist have an agenda to belittle Christians and discredit God. But if we are just animals which are the product of random selection then nothing we do is right are wrong. Without God then morality does not exist. The most evil cruel acts in histroy can not be condemn or condoned. If we are the product of random selection and just animals, doing what animals do. The Bible is so much easier to believe.
That scientist wanted to compare Iran with Christianity. I would compare their pholisophy or science with Marxism. Communist do not believe in God and their greatest legacy is mass graves. I fear a society that does not know and or fear God.
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
