Does Evolution and Science draw people away from God?

[Morny]

On the other side of the argument lies the belief that since some kinds of evolution are provable or observable, that means all evolution is assumed to be true.

No scientist uses such argumentation.

Like simple life forms evolving into sentient humans.

Truly amazing, yes? Evolution's evidence-based case for common descent (see my previous comment) supports the claim that humans share a common ancestor with chimps, rabbits, lizards, frogs, and fish. Did you see the science show "Your Inner Fish"?

[Morny]

Evolutionists even admit there's still a question of whether micro equals macro:

So? The scientists you quote (and all other scientists) almost all agree that the case for common descent hasn't been in question for over a hundred years.

Hanging your hat on some scientists disagreeing on exactly where the species boundary lies, seems like an atheist pointing out God doesn't exist, because religious scholars don't agree on what year Jesus was born.

[Storyteller]

On the other side of the argument lies the belief that since some kinds of evolution are provable or observable, that means all evolution is assumed to be true.

No scientist uses such argumentation.

Like simple life forms evolving into sentient humans.

Truly amazing, yes? Evolution's evidence-based case for common descent (see my previous comment) supports the claim that humans share a common ancestor with chimps, rabbits, lizards, frogs, and fish. Did you see the science show "Your Inner Fish"?

Forgive me because I am new to all this but isnt it possible tht we, along with everything else, have evilved? From God? The creator if life, the universe, and everything?
First there was light.... could that be the big bang?

The first creation of evolution?
Are we not, as Christians, evolving into something else?

[Audie]

None of that actually addresses what i said tho.

Ok. Try this link then. It's an evolution link that shows the term macroevolution was invented and first used by an evolutionist named Iuri'i Filipchenko.
And scientists do use the terms micro and macroevolution. There just seems to be no consensus on an accepted definition of macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroev ... ml#concept

Evolutionists even admit there's still a question of whether micro equals macro:

Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.

W/o getting into microquibble, the micro / macro thing in a creationist canard.

There simply is no known "so far and no further" barrier as is presented in the
micro/ macro distinction as presented in creationism , there is no theoretical limit or barrier.

That being the case saying one believes micro but macro is false
is a scientifically and intellectually untenable position. That it is mandated by
"conclusion first" as interpreted from the bible does not help.

[Audie]

There just seems to be no consensus on an accepted definition of macroevolution.

And I wonder why? And if everything is - or at least, WAS - in transition, how could you truly say when individuals of one species had transcended it's previous species?

Evolutionists even admit there's still a question of whether micro equals macro:

That's because they have no reliable ability to determine the difference between them. Macroevolution always sounds to me to merely show what MIGHT have been possible without being able to connect the dots with proof. And so evolutionary scientist always are playing the "ONE day, we'll have the answers" - or, their other favorites: "We may never truly know how this actually works, the details of it, but we can look at the (unconnected and unproven) evidences, and are at least certain that it, in fact, it DID happen." Or their bluffing hutzpah: "Evolution has overwhelming evidences that show it is a scientific fact." But none of that is truly conclusive science, as, instead, it's merely conjecture reveling in a scientific method that has rendered inconclusive, of often contradictory, evidences - which is why there are so many different schools of thought and arguments amongst evolutionary scientists as to actual mechanisms and processes.

Is that what you really think? All due respect, but it does not sound like it comes from
a source with much background in biology or geology.

[Morny]

Forgive me because I am new to all this but isnt it possible tht we, along with everything else, have evilved? From God? The creator if life, the universe, and everything?
First there was light.... could that be the big bang?

The first creation of evolution?
Are we not, as Christians, evolving into something else?

I don't know enough to even begin to answer any of your questions.

[Philip]

Is that what you really think? All due respect, but it does not sound like it comes from a source with much background in biology or geology.

Progressive Creationism accepts the very same evidences, Big Bang cosmology, the ancient approximated ages for the earth and universe -all of that - while offering a very plausible (but different) explanation for it. Yet, PC would require a creator. If God is a reality, these same evidences could have explanations that make evolution merely a false theory. Besides all of that, at least as far as the existence of a Creator is concerned, it's a silly argument that is nearly 10 billion years AFTER what ultimately needs explaining - how an incredibly sophisticated universe with complex laws guiding it, from its very beginning, came into being, BY ITSELF, and when nothing previously existed. Of course, IF evolution is a reality, it certainly doesn't rule out there being a Creator responsible for it. In fact, UNGUIDED evolution is not only an impossibility, but it assertions are in need of FAR more time, and they must rely on ridiculous gimmick theories to explain the Cambrian Explosion.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
W/o getting into microquibble, the micro / macro thing in a creationist canard.

After reading this, I don't want to discuss this subject with you anymore. I really don't have the time to waste with someone who is being dishonest. The term macroevolution was coined by an evolutionist. Besides, evolutionists and creationists both use the term macroevolution(even though it may be defined differently by either camp).

But for you to call the differences between micro and macro a creationist's groundless belief, is just plain dishonest. And someone who claims to be a scientist as you do, to make that claim, frankly just makes me question your honesty, and your reason for being on this forum.

[Audie]

Is that what you really think? All due respect, but it does not sound like it comes from a source with much background in biology or geology.

Progressive Creationism accepts the very same evidences, Big Bang cosmology, the ancient approximated ages for the earth and universe -all of that - while offering a very plausible (but different) explanation for it. Yet, PC would require a creator. If God is a reality, these same evidences could have explanations that make evolution merely a false theory. Besides all of that, at least as far as the existence of a Creator is concerned, it's a silly argument that is nearly 10 billion years AFTER what ultimately needs explaining - how an incredibly sophisticated universe with complex laws guiding it, from its very beginning, came into being, BY ITSELF, and when nothing previously existed. Of course, IF evolution is a reality, it certainly doesn't rule out there being a Creator responsible for it. In fact, UNGUIDED evolution is not only an impossibility, but it assertions are in need of FAR more time, and they must rely on ridiculous gimmick theories to explain the Cambrian Explosion.

On what basis do you say impossible?

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
W/o getting into microquibble, the micro / macro thing in a creationist canard.

After reading this, I don't want to discuss this subject with you anymore. I really don't have the time to waste with someone who is being dishonest. The term macroevolution was coined by an evolutionist. Besides, evolutionists and creationists both use the term macroevolution(even though it may be defined differently by either camp).

But for you to call the differences between micro and macro a creationist's groundless belief, is just plain dishonest. And someone who claims to be a scientist as you do, to make that claim, frankly just makes me question your honesty, and your reason for being on this forum.

The idea that there is "micro" but no "macro" is exactly as I said, a creationist thing based on religious
conviction. I pointed out quite correctly that no observed or theoretical barrier exists, to limit
change to within a "kind" whatever that might be.

Saying I am dishonest was uncalled for, and its untrue.
You tho are now honour bound to demonstrate that you
are speaking the truth when you say there are grounds for this
micro / macro distinction that creationists make.

I believe you are as mistaken about that as I know you are calling me dishonest,,
or saying I claim to be a scientist, which I am not nor have I ever
to anyone ever said I was.

[Morny]

Of course, IF evolution is a reality, it certainly doesn't rule out there being a Creator responsible for it.

For sure. My guess is that few scientists unequivocally "rule out" a Creator as the ultimate cause.

In fact, UNGUIDED evolution is not only an impossibility, but it assertions are in need of FAR more time, and they must rely on ridiculous gimmick theories to explain the Cambrian Explosion.

Whoa! Quite a big jump from your previous sentence to this one! Let's build a common frame of reference. Assume God created physics, kick-started the Big Bang, and then stood back to watch as the universe developed entirely according to His laws of physics.

Now, are you in more or less agreement with scientists that ~300,000 years after the Big Bang that the universe finally cooled down enough to form the first atoms? Or did God have to "guide" (beyond His already created physics) the formation of (mostly) hydrogen atoms from the previous state of a hot plasma of free protons and electrons?

[Audie]

Of course, IF evolution is a reality, it certainly doesn't rule out there being a Creator responsible for it.

For sure. My guess is that few scientists unequivocally "rule out" a Creator as the ultimate cause.

In fact, UNGUIDED evolution is not only an impossibility, but it assertions are in need of FAR more time, and they must rely on ridiculous gimmick theories to explain the Cambrian Explosion.

Whoa! Quite a big jump from your previous sentence to this one! Let's build a common frame of reference. Assume God created physics, kick-started the Big Bang, and then stood back to watch as the universe developed entirely according to His laws of physics.

Now, are you in more or less agreement with scientists that ~300,000 years after the Big Bang that the universe finally cooled down enough to form the first atoms? Or did God have to "guide" (beyond His already created physics) the formation of (mostly) hydrogen atoms from the previous state of a hot plasma of free protons and electrons?

Ive been curious enough to ask a fair number of people if they would absolutely say a god
is impossible, worded various ways. Never found anyone who did.

[melanie]

The fact of the matter is, no matter how many Christians tie in evolution into their beliefs, it has had a massive detrimental effect on people relying on God instead of man to answer the question of 'why are we here, how did we get here ect'.

We have always relied on man for these questions, God has been oh so silent on these matters, ancient man wrote the books of the Bible and modern man has interpreted them into beliefs concerning the creation of everything, how is this any different from using science to study what God has already created.

There have been enough independent studies to show how many people have rejected not only Christianity but religion in favour of evolutionary beliefs. Studies have also shown in the last hundred years the drop by percentage of scientists who claim to believe in God, there has been a fast and steady decline. I was just looking at a study the other day, I will try and find it and attach, but I don't think its really necessary, I think most people would logically see that scientist 100 years ago, 50 years ago up to the modern day have by and large turned to secular scientific beliefs completly outside of God. Does that mean evolution is inaccurate, of course not, what it does mean is the theory of evolution has had the effect of causing multitudes of people to turn away from God.

I would doubt that it has anything to do with actual science as a method of studying the world around us, I think personally the reason Christendom is in decline is because of certain creation ministries pushing people away with their narrow view of the Bible. Pretty much every young atheist I have met has said they left religion because of the Y.E.C approach of their church (don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with Y.E.C, but there is something wrong with a dogmatic approach to it) and the rejection of modern science, does this mean that Y.E.C is drawing people away from Christ, I don't think so. Unfortunately these young Christians didn't realise they could reconcile their beliefs about the world with their belief in God quite easily, but alas the damage has already been done by well meaning but misguided people. Really this is just blame shifting, science isn't at fault for this, people are at fault for this, we are broken and it is we that drive people away from Christ. The problem with these studies is that they can be biased, depending how how much information they admit and how much information they omit, what type of questions they asked, and what questions they decided not to ask, and a whole other host of other possibilities that could potentially colour the results. I for one prefer to actually ask people and I would seriously call into question the results of any study that claimed that science or evolution turned people away from God, based on my own life experiences I have found this to be far from true. I highly doubt there is a single reason for people leaving the faith, I think it is way over simplifying the problem and correlation does not always equal causation.

I have my own story of how science and evolution drew me to God and I am not the only one, many, many other people share the same story as myself, so there is that also, how come it drives some people away but draws others closer, to me that screams that it actually has nothing to do with science but has more to do with the actual people themselves. With that same line of reasoning you could say the Bible, philosophy, logic, reason etc.... pull people away from God, but we know that is just ridicules in the extreme. [1Corinthians 1:18] indicates that it is not logic or reason that drives people away, they are blind and cannot see.

I think people just need to take responsibility for their actions, both on behalf of believers and non believers and stop blaming everything else.

The burning question of 'why are we here' has been answered through science (not definitively, but convincingly enough for many) so as to deny the existence of God. The fact that you and many Chrsitians also believe in evolution in no way diminishes the fact that the vast majority of scientist would say and the scientific community as a whole (I have a whole heap of quotes from scientists and scientific communities) that science has proved that the universe, earth and humans were created by chance and completely outside of the will of God. Or as one scientist put it 'God is dead'.

Science deals with the how not the why, science hasn't and cannot prove why we are here, it is just not a subject that science deals with. You have quotes from scientists, so what, they are people with opinions based on their own beliefs, they mean nothing to actual science. You seem to be conflating science with beliefs or more to the point the beliefs of people who use science, people's beliefs are not science, science is just a method of discovering how the world works, it can no more answer why questions than a new born baby can. Science actually points towards a creator, everything we discover about this universe screams an intelligent mind behind it all, the complexity, the fine tuning, there being a beginning at the bang, the symmetry etc... etc.... etc.... Evolution to me points at an intelligent mind that has painted a masterpiece and has had me in awe at the powerful imagination of our creator, I find it exquisitely beautiful.


I am keenly interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject, especially from fellow T.E's.

Science as you percieve it points a creator, as it should
But I disagree, science has attempted to answer the question 'why' and the answer is by pure chance. The 'why' is there is no 'why'. Scientists conclude that we don't have a real purpose any more than a plant, bird or insect. We are animals that work no different, although more evolutionary superior to other species, maximising what causes pleasure and minimising that which brings pain.
For the most part christians have become the laughing stock of the academic, scientific circles. Which you touched on as to why a YEC belief has hampered in some ways not helped. So the alternative has been looking for the 'gaps' in the Big Bang and evolution, scientific theories and claiming that there 'proof' of God lies. Whether it be who or what was responsible in those moments before the Big Bang, how something comes from nothing ect. God of the gaps.
Yet here we have an infinite God, with infinite knowledge, omniscient and man who is finite. It is impossible for the finite to even start to grasp the infinite. We can try, give it a damn good educated go, but we do not come close to 'cutting the mustard'. Yet in our finite knowledge we have wedged an infinite God into the 'gaps' of our theories. As times goes by, we will continue to 'fit Him in' where our finite knowledge takes us and continue down the 'yellow brick road' but never seriously moving any closer, as that would be theoretically impossible.

Here is, on a more personal note, where my conundrum lies. I am going back to uni to finish a psychology degree and gain my honours so I can be a practising clinical psychologist. The science of the mind and behaviour. But yet I have to reconcile my passion with a field that attempts to answers questions completely outside of God. My bigger passion. My studies lead me into a field that answers a belief in God as an evolutionary by product. Love The Lord with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul. Yes it is a study of the mind, given to us by God, but I assure you in those studies, in the scientific field of psychology God is not present, in fact He is explained away by evolutionary psychology.

Best of luck on your course Melanie.

One point I would say though is that if evolution is the reason that we believe in God - that does not invalidate the truth of God himself - That would be committing the genetic fallacy.

Thanks Silver.
I don't think anybody's creation stance invalidates the truth of God to an individual. I don't think anyone can know for certain how God works His genius. I have never and would never question a persons faith or personal relationship with God over theological points of view.
I don't think evolution is 'the reason that we believe in God' any more than a personal revelation ect is the 'reason' it may be factors leading us to truth. God leads us He is the 'reason'.

[Philip]

I've no desire to argue over these various opinions that variously declare each school of thought on the specifics of how evolution MIGHT have worked - only to say, such an argument should be very specific to the very beginning of everything that came into existence. I'm not gonna have much faith in or be much interested in discussing the intricacies of calculus if, firstly, basic, foundational math can't be explained.

Also, IF an all-powerful God exists Who has no limitations, who knows ALL possibilities and has ALL ability to make them a reality, Who knows precisely as to whether or not He will do any one thing and precisely HOW He will do so - to say there is ANYTHING He COULD not have done, unless we are specifically and UNMISTAKEABLY, (meaning, can we be absolutely certain of its total truth) told He did not do or He did it in a certain way, then for a comparatively ignorant creature like man to say He MUST have only done or created in THIS way or THAT way is absurd. Such a powerful, unlimited Being COULD have done things in ANY ways He saw fit - and that INCLUDES (although, I happen to not think so, for many reasons, both Biblical and scientific) creating all in existence in a literal week. Man is very limited in His understandings and has relatively crude tools and limited ability to accurately understand the SPECIFICS of how God has and does operate. We risk enormous error whenever we say a God of such unlimited attributes supposedly "couldn't do THIS or THAT, or He could only have done it in any one certain way. We always must consider that there are quite a few things, both scientific and Biblically, that we have a poor grasp on.

[neo-x]

The micro-macro thing is just a concept to understand the boundaries of speciation at a point where the species is no logner able to mate. In the working model macro-micro means NOTHING. Just wanted to clear that out. So one can't say micro evolution is possible and macro isn't. Micro in the long run becomes macro. These go hand in hand. In the end there is just evolution, change over time. Which when a lot of time passes, makes the species different than what it once was. As for proof, DNA proves common descent.

Evolution, if taken properly, literally puts a question on a lot of traditional christian beliefs and obviously that is a hard thing to square. It introduces death biologically rather than because of sin. And pretty much negates a core belief that death came through sin. It proves that mankind didn't come from a single couple. It undermines man being special. It falsifies the literal creation account and pretty much all of the genesis story and its various interpretations.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a christian to undermine these beliefs. And that is why a lot of Christians adapt to a modified version of evolution called TE, rather than just evolution. Keeping the genesis story and evolution both sacred. However my experience has led me to believe that we can't do that. No matter how noble our intentions may be.