All Christians Should Accept EVOLUTION

by FusionTheism 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  FusionTheism

  It is time for Christians to accept evolution, in my opinion.

  There are many reasons why I think it is long overdue for all Christians to finally accept what science says about evolution. Below I will show these reasons.

  1. The Bible tells people to pay attention to nature to see the glory of God (Psalm 19; Romans 1:19-20). No one pays closer attention to nature than scientists. Scientists know far more about nature than the average Christian does. Christians shouldn't bury their heads in the sand. Therefore, the humble, honest Christian should defer to the experts on nature.
  2. There is no contradiction between what science shows regarding evolution, and what Genesis reveals about God's creation of the universe. You can google to research other interpretations of Genesis. You should especially visit BioLogos. (For additional reading, please see Allegorical Interpretations of Genesis)
  3. Christians are commanded by the New Testament to be in subjection to the government leaders and officials (Romans 13:1-4), and since they are promoting evolution as scientific fact, we should accept this without fighting, as long as no essential doctrine is at stake.
  4. There is no contradiction between accepting evolution and believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no reason you can't believe in both Jesus saving us from sin and that evolution was the natural process God used to create life on earth.
  5. Publicly opposing or condemning evolution or the scientists who teach it, makes Christianity look very bad and ignorant in the eyes of the world. If we want the world to take us seriously about anything we teach about God or Jesus, then we need to stop making ourselves look like fools when it comes to science.
  6. We don't want our children or grandchildren falling behind in having the latest scientific knowledge or breakthroughs due to denying the fundamental theories of science, such as evolution.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  I agree with the topic, but of all the reasons you've posted I only agree with one (the 6th).

  All of the other reasons you state are only accepting evolution on the caveat that it is done within the view of Christian Faith and scripture. This is not possible.
  

  I am very happy to see that another person is reading and educating themselves on these subjects, so please don't take this as me bullying you; I'm merely going to state the following as a form of quality control for the information you are taking in and the threads you are making.

  1. There is no contradiction between what science shows regarding evolution, and what Genesis reveals about God's creation of the universe. You can google to research other interpretations of Genesis. You should especially visit BioLogos. (For additional reading, please seeAllegorical Interpretations of Genesis)

  This second post is empirically false. The various Christian faiths all share several non-negotiable tenets. One of these tenets is that all of mankind descended from two specific progenitors: Adam and Eve. This is a non-negotiable claim, because through these two we have all inherited sin and death and the necessity of a savior becomes part of the story.

  Evolutionary geneticists now know that the human population could never have been merely two people at any point in history.

  The genetic evidence tells us several things. First, the genes in all modern humans diverged from one another a long time ago - long before the 6,000 to 10,000 years estimated in scripture ... the evidence is even stronger, for we can also back-calculate from DNA sequences the size of human populations at different times in the past. And we know that when our ancestors left Africa between 100,000 and 60,000 years ago to colonize the world, the size of the migrating group dropped to a minimum of 2,250 individuals - and that's an underestimate. The population that remained in Africa stayed larger: a minimum of about 10,000 people. The total number of ancestors of modern humans, then, was not two but over 12,000 individuals."

  - Jerry Coyne, Faith Versus Fact pg 126-127

  This is a universal truth, proven by science, clashing with a universal truth claimed by religion with no proof whatsoever. The reality is that there were never in history at any given time only two human beings, and as a result the entire premise of sin and death being passed on is impossible because there are far more than 2 progenitors. This then makes the necessity of a savior null, and the entire Christian Faith crumbles. These are empirical truths.

  I'm only going to dismantle one of your points because I do not want to come across like I'm trying to destroy your OP. But I will say this, and it is very important, reality and truth should never be accepted on religious grounds because science and reason are NOT true because of religion - they are true just because they are.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  I almost forgot to address the BioLogos foundation, and I must.

  It is funded by the John Templeton Foundation. John was a Presbyterian convinced that science would answer what he called "the big questions". These questions are a mix of scientific and religious things like evolution, infinity and time as well as prayer. He believed that science would prove God essentially, and to that end left his fortune to support this goal. It's a hugely biased endeavor. And no matter how they try to contort discoveries and rely on "God of the gaps" arguments, science just keeps proving it all wrong, little by little, one step at a time.

  though these organizations are hugely accommodationalist and work very hard at using their intelligent to show that theists can accept Jesus and Darwin, my last post by itself thoroughly destroys such an idea.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  #1. The Bible tells people to...

  Don't rely on the writings of sheep and goat herders from thousands of years ago when it comes to science. But also don't just assume that you are "defer[ing] to the experts on nature." It seems that there are always people with an agenda, so weigh out what they say and use your brain. Someone will say that the globe is not warming and that the earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Be careful.

  #2. There is no contradiction between...

  Jonathan Drake covered that well. There is contradiction there.

  #3. Christians are commanded by the New Testament...

  See my thoughts on #1. Similarly, do not follow blindly. But even if you did, I know that in the United States, the government is loaded with people who claim they believe that God wrote the book by goat/sheep herders. They are not insisting that people embrace evolution.

  #4. There is no contradiction between...

  Stop, you make me laugh. The whole premise of the Bible is original sin and a redeemer. Without Adam and Eve and original sin, no need for a redeemer. I mean, did a neanderthal "sin" or was he just an animal? Don't let the book by goat/sheep herders of thousands of years ago define what is right and wrong for you and don't consider violating the rules from the goat/sheep herders to be a sin requiring sacrifice to the god of the sheep/goat herders. There are plenty of wrong things to do that hurt others. Develop a good set of morals without the book that treats women as a lower class and says it's okay to beat your slave just short of death. The law and your own conscience do a better job helping you here.

  #5. Publicly opposing or condemning....

  I kind of agree. But scoffing at the "miracles" of other beliefs and accepting the "miracles" of Christianity are doing that also- making Christians look ignorant.

  #6. I wholeheartedly agree with this point from the opening post. I would add that knowledge and education solves all problems and children need to grow up to add to that knowledge to further dismiss the idea of following the book from the ancient goat/sheep herders.
• 

  FusionTheism

  Why is a literal Adam required when a literal prodigal son isn't required for Jesus' parable and a literal good Samaritan isn't required for that parable?

  If the Son of God didn't need to use literal characters in any of His parables, why did Paul need to use literal characters in his arguments?
• 

  FusionTheism

  Accidental double post
• 

  nicolaou

  How about accepting evolution because of the facts? Much simpler.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Why is a literal Adam required when a literal prodigal son isn't required for Jesus' parable and a literal good Samaritan isn't required for that parable?
  

  Without a literal Adam and Eve there is no original couple to pass on sin to all humanity. Without the Fall there is no necessity for the Messianic savior from the consequences of sin passed on from the fall.

  The Christian Faith is absolutely non negotiable on Adam and Eve, but if possible all the more so on Jesus Christ being the messianic savior. The only means for salvation per the bible is belief in the Christ as the messiah. These are not allegory stories FT, the Christian Faith believes them literal truths.

  You cannot make Adam and Eve allegory without also making allegory the story of Jesus, if that story is not literal then there is no life after death and no resurrection of the dead. There would be no point in the faith.
• 

  nicolaou

  Why is a literal Adam required . . ?

  Because the Christian message falls apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Science finds that the "prehistoric" world was violent and creatures were eating each other and were many were wiped out of existence. Genesis, even if figurative, gives us a wonderful world where man's disobedience to God led to the chaos we have. You cannot combine the two into one harmony.

  The closest you might come is to read "Fill the earth and subdue it." This suggests something wasn't quite right and was out of control and man was to gain control over it. If God elevated one human pair from among all of the humans that science has shown to be present, and put them into a garden of sorts and said, "This is harmony, spread it earthwide, fill the earth, and subdue it," then are we reaping the punishment from that Adam and Eve even if we are the offspring of other humans and not them?

  If humans had already been dying, and someone turned away from God at some point in time, say over 6000 years ago, how and why are all humans in need of a redeemer? If all humans fall short of the glory of God and that is defined as the sin, then we have angels falling away and all humans in sin. That means God didn't do so good creating beings. What a bastard.