Evidence for God from Science

Recently i discovered that there was such a thing called Theistic Evolution. However, my short study of this view have led me to the conclusion that Theistic Evolution is not so clear. How do you cohesively adhere Evolution and Creation into 1 flowing account? I say not quite so easy. I think one of the views is that the flood was local and not global? How does that work? What is Scriptural evidence- Scientific evidence? The thing that frustrates me the most is that often the Biblical evidence are nit-picked verses that are often not understood in their context. However, lately, it seemed that many Christians share that view, and i would like to know what is so compelling about this view and the main arguements of one who shares this view.

FearlessLlearsy wrote:However, my short study of this view have led me to the conclusion that Theistic Evolution is not so clear.

Of course it's not clear. I hope I won't offend anyone by saying this, but for me theistic evolution is just a compromise attempt to reconcile God's word with ever-changing theories of the fallen man. Godless man, I might add, because most evolutionists are atheists who try to undermine Christianity by imposing their philosophy in any possible way. Instead of fighting it, we make compromises, not realizing the dangers. Imagine... If evolution is true, then Adam and Eve were not the first humans. In that case, there wasn't original sin, and in that case, Jesus had no reason to die on the cross. Evolution doesn't by itself deny the existence of the Creator God, but the question then would be - who is that Creator? As you can see, this issue stirs up a lot of confusion.

FearlessLlearsy wrote:i would like to know what is so compelling about this view and the main arguements of one who shares this view.

The compelling thing is that you can consider yourself a Christian, and be politically correct at the same time. As for the arguments, I listened to a scientist who is a theistic evolutionist, and his arguments were so weak that I could refute them, not to mention what an experienced atheistic materialist would have done to him in a debate.

I hope I won't offend anyone by saying this, but for me theistic evolution is just a compromise attempt to reconcile God's word with ever-changing theories of the fallen man.

Let me ask you Reactionary, if there was no evidence presented by the science community either way for a 6 billion year old earth and a 10,000 year old earth, would you still be an Old Earth Creationist? Would a literal reading of Genesis with no influence from man's theories lead you to believe in an Old Earth? I would say that everyone reconciles theories of mankind with their readings of the Bible. Same thing with the local flood viewpoints. I don't think it is off limits to do this though. I do not think that one has to reject scientific truths that the Bible makes no mention of. The Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs or atoms, but I think they exist. There is strong evidence for them, and there is strong evidence for macroevolution. Darwinian evolution is not mutually exclusive with the Biblical God.

I said this in another thread, but it does not make Jesus' death meaningless if there wasn't a literal Adam or tree of knowldege. It wouldn't change the fact that sin exists in the world and needs to be dealt with. Denying Adam doesn't mean denying the existence of sin. All you have to do is look at the world throughout history to see that it exists.

I would also disagree that most who hold to evolution are atheists. Within the science field there is a higher percentage of atheists than the general population, but most of them are still theistic, many of them Christian. At the same time, most scientists accept evolution.

Seraph wrote:Let me ask you Reactionary, if there was no evidence presented by the science community either way for a 6 billion year old earth and a 10,000 year old earth, would you still be an Old Earth Creationist? Would a literal reading of Genesis with no influence from man's theories lead you to believe in an Old Earth?

I wanted to pick only "Creationist" in my user control panel, but I had to make up my mind between old and young Earth, so I picked "old", as I believe that days from the Genesis could indeed mean eras... To be honest, I believed so even when I was a kid, uninfluenced by scientific "evidence". I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Earth is indeed 10,000 years old. I don't have enough knowledge on the age issues to firmly pick a side.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Seraph wrote:I would say that everyone reconciles theories of mankind with their readings of the Bible. Same thing with the local flood viewpoints. I don't think it is off limits to do this though.

True, but where are the limits? You can't say, "I'll believe this, but I won't believe that, because I find it unrealistic." Either the Word of God is true, or it isn't.

Seraph wrote:I do not think that one has to reject scientific truths that the Bible makes no mention of. The Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs or atoms, but I think they exist. There is strong evidence for them, and there is strong evidence for macroevolution. Darwinian evolution is not mutually exclusive with the Biblical God.

I'm afraid you're mixing observable science with historical science. Dinosaurs and atoms are a fact, because we can observe the fossils of dinosaurs, and we can observe atoms via specialized microscopes. However, we can not observe macroevolution. We can only make assumptions (and change them every 20 years or so, as it's common) in order to interpret the evidence we have. A mutation which adds information to the genome has never been observed, and transitional fossils haven't been found either. Enough to make me highly skeptical of evolution, especially judging by who are the people who propagate that "fact", and in what way.

Seraph wrote:I said this in another thread, but it does not make Jesus' death meaningless if there wasn't a literal Adam or tree of knowldege. It wouldn't change the fact that sin exists in the world and needs to be dealt with. Denying Adam doesn't mean denying the existence of sin. All you have to do is look at the world throughout history to see that it exists.

True, denying Adam doesn't mean denying the existence of sin, but it does mean undermining the entire Bible, because if we can't trust the very first book of the Bible, how could we trust the rest to be accurate?

Seraph wrote:I would also disagree that most who hold to evolution are atheists. Within the science field there is a higher percentage of atheists than the general population, but most of them are still theistic, many of them Christian. At the same time, most scientists accept evolution.

I believe the Christians v atheists ratio among scientists is about 50:50. You are aware, of course, that scientists who oppose evolution risk losing their jobs and their academic statuses (thanks to our "free-thinking" society). As for the fact that most scientists accept evolution, well, that doesn't mean anything. That's a fallacy of appeal to belief. Scientists once believed that Earth was the centre of the universe, that bloodletting was beneficial to health, that tonsils were "vestigial" organs etc., but they were proven wrong. Just like the common beliefs of this generation will be laughed at sometime in the future.

I'll just point out that not a single part of the Bible has ever been proven wrong, yet beliefs of evolutionists keep changing from year to year, adapting to the evidence which disproves it, indeed "surviving" like the "fittest".

I hope I won't offend anyone by saying this, but for me theistic evolution is just a compromise attempt to reconcile God's word with ever-changing theories of the fallen man.

The more and more i read about it, it is like instead of proving that the Bible is a source of truth, they focus on proving how evolution is valid by the backing of the scripture>>

Let me ask you Reactionary, if there was no evidence presented by the science community either way for a 6 billion year old earth and a 10,000 year old earth, would you still be an Old Earth Creationist?

One must remember, the bible is not specific about how old the earth is. For one, it does not mention the period of time Adam spent in the Garden before eating the "bad fruit". For all we know, that could be a couple days, or millions of years. Personally, i dont share a point on this issue, because the young earth creationist dont know how much time Adam spent in that Garden of Eden, and for two, i have learned not to 100% believe the science of Men, because it does have FLAWS.

The Bible makes no mention of dinosaursor

What do you do with the story of Job?

Job 40:15-19 (King James Version)
15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

One must remember that the word Dinosaur came after the translation of the Kings James version. The king James version was made in the mid 1600's while the word dinosaur itself was formed later in the 1800's. So, the author was using the word at the time that would depict a dinosaur, without necesseraly saying the word "dinosaur". Also, if dinosaurs coexisted at a certain point of time with men, what do you do with evolution that says Dinosaurs were millions of years extinct before men came to be?

I am closest to theistic evolution, in that i believe the universe in billions of years old that the universe was started by God and then he added everything into it and made man, the fact the fossil records are millions of years old makes me think Adam was not the first man and mind you the bible never says Adam was the first man ever created. He was the first man in recorded history and in terms of biblical history. The fact that I am not of the view that the earth is 10000 years old is because it just doesn't make sense to me, no offense to anyone, please. But I can not think how I err in believing that God is behind all of it and he actually did kick started the whole process and guided it.

if the bible is to be taken literally than the sun never stopped when Joshua was fighting the war, those people did not know and what seemed obvious they wrote, the same can be the case with genesis 1. In a world that has an increase of knowledge we are not required by God to stay behind, we need to update ourselves as well. The fact that Christianity is called absurd is not always because of hatred but also because they find it absurd of us to stick to something that is not even a scientific statement, call it metaphorical, allegorical whatever.

I hope I won't offend anyone by saying this, but for me theistic evolution is just a compromise attempt to reconcile God's word with ever-changing theories of the fallen man.

No offense taken bro, just stating why and how it is wrong to think that people like me are trying to cave in with the modern world, this is not true. Personally I agree, evolution has never been observed but so hasn't been creationism. And like religion, science has its own blunders, but I do not find them so inexcusable as to throw entire science out of the window. Same is the case with religion.

Why do u think, making sense of what you believe with the most updated knowledge is wrong?

as for you saying

As for the fact that most scientists accept evolution, well, that doesn't mean anything. That's a fallacy of appeal to belief. Scientists once believed that Earth was the centre of the universe, that bloodletting was beneficial to health, that tonsils were "vestigial" organs etc., but they were proven wrong. Just like the common beliefs of this generation will be laughed at sometime in the future.

I'll just point out that not a single part of the Bible has ever been proven wrong, yet beliefs of evolutionists keep changing from year to year, adapting to the evidence which disproves it, indeed "surviving" like the "fittest".

do you know that in the medieval age, the only sex position that the church allowed was the missionary position as they said it was what the Bible teaches, man on top women beneath, every other sex position was held as wrong and could get you to hell. Imagine if you'd be in that age, would you fight the notion or make a compromise, since no one knows any better. Would you hold to this view because the bible is not clear about this but this is what your church preaches and defends. or would you apply common logic. I hope you see my point. Bible is not scientific text, it shouldn't be held as one. That doesn't mean it has to be called wrong just because it is old. The obvious problem is, science accuses religion because it has been in the past claimed to have known the absolute truth about our universe and it fails.

I am trying to make sense, thats all.

FearlessLlearsy wrote:What do you do with the story of Job?

Job 40:15-19 (King James Version)
15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

One must remember that the word Dinosaur came after the translation of the Kings James version. The king James version was made in the mid 1600's while the word dinosaur itself was formed later in the 1800's. So, the author was using the word at the time that would depict a dinosaur, without necesseraly saying the word "dinosaur". Also, if dinosaurs coexisted at a certain point of time with men, what do you do with evolution that says Dinosaurs were millions of years extinct before men came to be?

True, and not only that, various stories of dragons a.k.a. dinosaurs appeared in different civilizations which were, as far as I know, independent of each other at the time. Some evolutionists say that those stories "evolved" because of our instinctive fear of spitting snakes, birds of prey and lizards, but that explanation doesn't sound convincing to me, especially since those depictions very accurately resemble dinosaurs. There was even one engraved into a late medieval object, I can't remember the source right now, so if someone knows what I'm talking about, remind me...

neo-x wrote:In a world that has an increase of knowledge we are not required by God to stay behind, we need to update ourselves as well. The fact that Christianity is called absurd is not always because of hatred but also because they find it absurd of us to stick to something that is not even a scientific statement, call it metaphorical, allegorical whatever.

neo-x wrote:No offense taken bro, just stating why and how it is wrong to think that people like me are trying to cave in with the modern world, this is not true. Personally I agree, evolution has never been observed but so hasn't been creationism. And like religion, science has its own blunders, but I do not find them so inexcusable as to throw entire science out of the window. Same is the case with religion.

Why do u think, making sense of what you believe with the most updated knowledge is wrong?

I don't think that making sense of what you believe with the most updated knowledge is wrong in itself, but what if that "knowledge" turns out to be false? Then we're in danger of falling into a "God-of-the-gaps" scenario if we adjust our belief to the ever-changing theory of evolution. Once we affirm that something is true, it doesn't change. For instance, the periodic table of chemical elements was discovered in the 19th century, and yet it's never been changed - only expanded as the knowledge increased, but what was true two centuries ago is still true today, because facts are facts. On the other hand, most of the "facts" that were considered true by evolutionists 50 years ago have been largely refuted, and undoubtedly new "facts" will continue to emerge as the old ones no longer stand. That's why I consider it highly dangerous to align yourself to such a dubious theory.

By the way, where did you get the idea that I would throw the entire science out of the window because of evolutionary fallacies?

neo-x wrote:do you know that in the medieval age, the only sex position that the church allowed was the missionary position as they said it was what the Bible teaches, man on top women beneath, every other sex position was held as wrong and could get you to hell. Imagine if you'd be in that age, would you fight the notion or make a compromise, since no one knows any better. Would you hold to this view because the bible is not clear about this but this is what your church preaches and defends. or would you apply common logic. I hope you see my point.

I'm struggling... I developed my skepticism towards evolution myself, nobody told me so. My Catholic Church doesn't oppose evolution, it tells us to decide for ourselves what to think of it. Now, I'm 20 years old and logically, I don't have a degree in natural sciences, but I do have enough knowledge about physics, chemistry and biology to read, inform myself and form opinions. I stick to creationism as I personally find it more convincing.

neo-x wrote:Bible is not scientific text, it shouldn't be held as one. That doesn't mean it has to be called wrong just because it is old. The obvious problem is, science accuses religion because it has been in the past claimed to have known the absolute truth about our universe and it fails.

I am trying to make sense, thats all.

I don't quite understand you, which "science" accuses "religion"? You can't blame the Bible for the wrong interpretations done by certain religious officials. The same thing is often done by scientists, they sometimes incorrectly interpret the evidence. As for the fact that antitheists always attack Christianity on the basis of the Inquisition, Crusades, witch trials and so much other historically distorted nonsense that makes me want to vomit, that's not the problem of religion.

dear neo-x, if God did use evolution as a tool to make earth into existence, then there are 3 things i would like you to clarify:
1. How did we humans end up having souls? If we derived from animals, who, up to this date, science cant prove that they have a soul.

i believe the universe in billions of years old that the universe was started by God and then he added everything into it and made man

2. Why is the evolution sequence SO MUCH different the the biblical account:
Evolution Sequence / Creation Sequence
Sun/stars existed before Earth / Earth created before sun/stars
Sun is Earth's first light / Light on Earth before sun
First life was marine organisms / First life was land plants
Reptiles predate birds / Birds predate land reptiles
Land mammals predate whales / Whales predate land mammals
Out of death, man came to be / Adam was first man, and death followed his sin.

In no way shape or form does evolution adhere cohesively with creation... does it?
If we believe that the word of the Living God is true, for he is perfect in all his ways, should not we trust that sin/death entered the world only after Adam and Eve disoeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
3. A lack of fossil record? I have been looking everywhere on the net intensively for a solid fossil record, recording the gradual evolution of man. What startled me so much was the big difference between the ape, and the second stage of man evolution. It was almost like a SPONTANEOUS change. But, as rational people, we know an animal give birth to its own kind. As much as i can see, those two organism could have been two different animals themselves and mutation so big as this could not happen in one generation. As long as the rest of fossil record cannot be found (if its out there somewhere) i say it is still a theory to say that man came from apes, since the "DATA" is incomplete. Would you agree with me on that?
Again, for the age of Earth, it is a bunch of Theories, i abstain myself from things that cannot be proven to be 100% right. I suppose only God knows the answer.

FearlessLlearsy wrote:3. A lack of fossil record? I have been looking everywhere on the net intensively for a solid fossil record, recording the gradual evolution of man. What startled me so much was the big difference between the ape, and the second stage of man evolution. It was almost like a SPONTANEOUS change. But, as rational people, we know an animal give birth to its own kind. As much as i can see, those two organism could have been two different animals themselves and mutation so big as this could not happen in one generation. As long as the rest of fossil record cannot be found (if its out there somewhere) i say it is still a theory to say that man came from apes, since the "DATA" is incomplete.

Yeah, I believe it's all a big bluff. I also searched the evidence for evolution, and it usually begins with: "Well, the evidence is overwhelming. Let's just look through some of them...", then the chapter 2 begins with "Scientists believe...", "It is widely assumed...", etc. I remember my biology textbook from school (and mind that it hasn't been a long time since I graduated), it was full of ifs, buts and maybes. I seriously started to question my sanity at that point, as I couldn't see the connection between their observations and conclusions. The fact that I had a D+ in evolutionary biology doesn't surprise me today, as most of the questions in those tests were like "What are the implications of...". Seriously, this demanded more creativity than writing compositions for literature classes. Unfortunately, that's not one of my strongest points.

Back from this little digression, the issue of mutations complicates a lot of stuff for evolutionists, because
1) they are rare, and
2) when they do happen, they cripple an entire organism. Only a few genes rearranged, and you have a fatal genetic disease. Nothing orderly ever comes from disorder.

As for the animals that give birth only to their own kind, the only exception I'm aware of is crossing horses and donkeys, which produces mules, but guess what... they are infertile.

FearlessLlearsy wrote:Again, for the age of Earth, it is a bunch of Theories, i abstain myself from things that cannot be proven to be 100% right. I suppose only God knows the answer.

I'll abstain from that issue as well.

In a world that has an increase of knowledge we are not required by God to stay behind, we need to update ourselves as well. The fact that Christianity is called absurd is not always because of hatred but also because they find it absurd of us to stick to something that is not even a scientific statement, call it metaphorical, allegorical whatever.

Sounds like a dead man being raised back to life does not fit man's increase of knowledge. Maybe we need to update ourselves in this area as well?

My problem with Theistic evolution is that Darwinian evolution is not simply a scientific method but a philosophical framework. From the first, Darwin began to frame his ideas with the thoughts of supporting a materialistic worldview and erasing God from the equation.

I'm afraid you're mixing observable science with historical science. Dinosaurs and atoms are a fact, because we can observe the fossils of dinosaurs, and we can observe atoms via specialized microscopes. However, we can not observe macroevolution. We can only make assumptions (and change them every 20 years or so, as it's common) in order to interpret the evidence we have. A mutation which adds information to the genome has never been observed, and transitional fossils haven't been found either. Enough to make me highly skeptical of evolution, especially judging by who are the people who propagate that "fact", and in what way.

Excellent response. It is wishful thinking to compare macroevolution to atoms and fossils.
I've been at this too long. I've been to the talk origin sites, etc. And it almost makes you want to cry to see what measures many will go to to support Darwinism. It appears that artistic renderings are now considered evidence. I could go into lengthy examples but I will spare you. Well, rodhocetus is a great example regarding the rocl solid evidence of whale evolution

I did this once here regarding 'hominid' evolution, and was able to demonstrate that the so called 'convincing evidence' of ape to man was based on a little more than controversial bone fragments, imagination and speculation. But this isn't how the case is presented. One would think just looking on the surfave that the case is all but closed. But just a little digging shows how Darwinian bias has essentially been a pair of scissors to reshape the puzzle pieces to fit its worldview. I expect this from talkorigins. I do not expect believers to be so naive. Example: what is a transitional fossil? Is Archeaoptryx? OK, what did it transition from and then to? Can anyone tell us? No. We don't have an animal that indicates it preceeded it, not one that followed. Let us not even mention the hundreds of artistic drawings of archeoptryx that have it with scales. Even though there is ZERO evidence in the fossil record that it had scales. It was a fully feathered bird, capable of flight. Yet, we can't find not a single evidence of an animal with a transitional scale to feather anatomy anywhere in the fossil record. It would take what, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of such transitions.

A good site to go to to get a solid grasp on theistic evolution is the biologos one:
biologos.org

You see, the reason i started this post is because my teacher at school who had a degree in Religion at Baylor is propagating this idea of mixing Creation and Evolution (theistic evolution). The part that kills me is that most highschoolers in my Christian school are vain enough to blindly accept some pretty distorted beliefs without researching and thinking for themselves, thus ending up with distorted conclusions.

Guys, i did write I was close to theistic evolution but only because there is no category listed that came close to what I think when I joined here., i guess my own thinking comes here - in it I do not believe in ape to man transformation, I think God did make man in his own image.

dear neo-x, if God did use evolution as a tool to make earth into existence, then there are 3 things i would like you to clarify:
1. How did we humans end up having souls? If we derived from animals, who, up to this date, science cant prove that they have a soul.
i believe the universe in billions of years old that the universe was started by God and then he added everything into it and made man

2. Why is the evolution sequence SO MUCH different the the biblical account:
Evolution Sequence / Creation Sequence
Sun/stars existed before Earth / Earth created before sun/stars
Sun is Earth's first light / Light on Earth before sun
First life was marine organisms / First life was land plants
Reptiles predate birds / Birds predate land reptiles
Land mammals predate whales / Whales predate land mammals
Out of death, man came to be / Adam was first man, and death followed his sin.

In no way shape or form does evolution adhere cohesively with creation... does it?
If we believe that the word of the Living God is true, for he is perfect in all his ways, should not we trust that sin/death entered the world only after Adam and Eve disoeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
3. A lack of fossil record? I have been looking everywhere on the net intensively for a solid fossil record, recording the gradual evolution of man. What startled me so much was the big difference between the ape, and the second stage of man evolution. It was almost like a SPONTANEOUS change. But, as rational people, we know an animal give birth to its own kind. As much as i can see, those two organism could have been two different animals themselves and mutation so big as this could not happen in one generation. As long as the rest of fossil record cannot be found (if its out there somewhere) i say it is still a theory to say that man came from apes, since the "DATA" is incomplete. Would you agree with me on that?
Again, for the age of Earth, it is a bunch of Theories, i abstain myself from things that cannot be proven to be 100% right. I suppose only God knows the answer.

Yes I would agree with you on that, there is no complete data. It is all theories. On the question of sequence, I simply think that genesis 1 may not be in the specific order in which things were created, it is more allegorical than literal. but that i suppose is left to individual interpretation. all in all, no matter what I say, I do not refute the biblical account. Man was made in the image of God, there was no transformation. The pre-historic man is a different issue and i suppose doesn't affect genesis 1. which only amounts to question that whether Adam was the first man.

on this,

If we believe that the word of the Living God is true, for he is perfect in all his ways, should not we trust that sin/death entered the world only after Adam and Eve disoeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

i agree with you brother, but there is tons of fossils out there predating man, even if I take literal interpretation of genesis. I trust God - that sin entered in this world like the bible says. But if death occurred only then, then it was just for humans and as a result of sin other wise I do not think that God made everything without death, including, animals, ocean creatures etc etc, because that would imbalance natural, no deaths and ever increasing numbers in other species would have forced a problem in the long run. It is a known scientific fact that there is a food chain, which means there is a balance between everything God created. So everything remains in order in balance, even our own planet has its own mechanism to replenish it self, refreshing it self. That to me is the astounding wonder of God's hands and how he made everything in its perfect balance.

I am all up for the idea that death entered in the world when sin entered, but I think it would have to be held true only in the case of humans, nothing else. so I think as other species predating man, rose and became extinct.

As for the age of universe, the speed of light is constant and that is the only way to map and measure the universe as well as time.and though it is all in theories, general relativity does make some very good answers, but again, there is always another theory to counter it.

Francis Collins' "The Language of God" is a strong book that gives the reasons, in a form in places similar to C.S. Lewis (who was also a theistic evolutionist) for the position.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Francis Collins' "The Language of God" is a strong book that gives the reasons,

Personally, I've read "The Language of God", and I found it quite confusing. A considerable part of the book is the author's personal testimony, but as for the "evidence for belief", I struggled to find any. Most of the time he actually dealt with refuting creationists' arguments (the weak ones, of course), all the time stating like "But that shouldn't discourage us from believing." Honestly, his work gives the impression that the belief in God is actually a biological need, or a God-of-the-Gaps scenario. Plus, I found the obvious bias towards evolution irritating, and more importantly, unsubstantiated. My conclusion - a disappointing book.