Evidence for God from Science

Found this article to be very interesting on the history of evolution and the early acceptance of evolution by the Church.

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/cont ... compatible

The very first written response to Darwin’s famous book On the Origin of Species [1859] was from an Anglican priest and was so positive in tone that Darwin quoted from it in the second edition of the Origin.

The priest was the Rev. Charles Kingsley and on November 18th, 1859, six days before the publication of the Origin, he was thanking Darwin for his kind gift of an advance copy, writing that ‘All I have seen of it awes me’, commenting that it is ‘just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self-development...as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas [gaps] which He Himself had made’.

I like this quote.

There are not, and cannot be, any Divine interpositions in nature, for God cannot interfere with Himself. His creative activity is present everywhere. There is no division of labour between God and nature, or God and law… For the Christian theologian the facts of nature are the acts of God.

Nice find Dan, interesting indeed. I wan't aware of this.

neo-x wrote:Nice find Dan, interesting indeed. I wan't aware of this.

I find it funny all the hate towards Darwin from certain sectors within the body of Christ, yet when he did his original research he was praised by influential people within the church and accepted by the vast majority of Christians, it just goes to show how times and attitudes can change drastically over a few years. I think most of the negativity is due to this human desire to have an us and them attitude, probably a throw back to tribalism.

it probably is that.

It's actually pretty amazing how widely accepted Darwinian Evolution was in the early parts of the 20th century, even among Christians and other religious folk. Obviously there were some ultra-conservative detractors, but there was no significant anti-evolution campaign like we see today until the Great Depression era, when many southern churches started openly preaching against evolution, mainly because they feared evolution would lead to widespread atheism or agnosticism. Which is pretty ironic, since evolutionary thought had done nothing to promote atheism prior to that and was, in fact, accepted in most religious organizations, and today many of those same groups of people who opposed evolution have done a heck of a lot more to turn people away from going to church than evolution ever did.

Ivellious wrote:It's actually pretty amazing how widely accepted Darwinian Evolution was in the early parts of the 20th century, even among Christians and other religious folk. Obviously there were some ultra-conservative detractors, but there was no significant anti-evolution campaign like we see today until the Great Depression era, when many southern churches started openly preaching against evolution, mainly because they feared evolution would lead to widespread atheism or agnosticism. Which is pretty ironic, since evolutionary thought had done nothing to promote atheism prior to that and was, in fact, accepted in most religious organizations, and today many of those same groups of people who opposed evolution have done a heck of a lot more to turn people away from going to church than evolution ever did.

You spoke my mind.

Ivellious wrote:It's actually pretty amazing how widely accepted Darwinian Evolution was in the early parts of the 20th century, even among Christians and other religious folk. Obviously there were some ultra-conservative detractors, but there was no significant anti-evolution campaign like we see today until the Great Depression era, when many southern churches started openly preaching against evolution, mainly because they feared evolution would lead to widespread atheism or agnosticism. Which is pretty ironic, since evolutionary thought had done nothing to promote atheism prior to that and was, in fact, accepted in most religious organizations, and today many of those same groups of people who opposed evolution have done a heck of a lot more to turn people away from going to church than evolution ever did.

Kind of ironic isn't it, but it's not surprising that hate turns people off, you can't preach a message of love and acceptance alongside hate and exclusion.

I can understand from a certain POV how evolution ( if misunderstood as it was) COULD have lead people to believe it was "anti-god", especially how it was used by some.
We must always remember that there is what SCIENCE says about something and what PEOPLE SAY that science says about something.
That God may have used the same "building blocks" to "create" man as he did for other animals is not a big issue.
The issue is the notion that man came to be MAN over periods of time in which he evolved ( without God's control) from another animal into Man as we know him to be now.
Genesis states clearly that Man was created from the Earth and NOT from another animal.

PaulS wrote:
Genesis states clearly that Man was created from the Earth and NOT from another animal.

Paul,

Stop putting evolution down, or I'll get the Queen to ban you.

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Genesis states clearly that Man was created from the Earth and NOT from another animal.

Paul,

Stop putting evolution down, or I'll get the Queen to ban you.

I bet that post surprise you, LOL

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Genesis states clearly that Man was created from the Earth and NOT from another animal.

Paul,

Stop putting evolution down, or I'll get the Queen to ban you.

I bet that post surprise you, LOL

I knew evolution was indefensible from scripture. I'm just surprised you finally admitted it.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Genesis states clearly that Man was created from the Earth and NOT from another animal.

Paul,

Stop putting evolution down, or I'll get the Queen to ban you.

I bet that post surprise you, LOL

I knew evolution was indefensible from scripture. I'm just surprised you finally admitted it.

BWWAHHH !!! Nice one.

Yes, it is true that IF Genesis is to be taken as a literal and concrete telling of the origins of man, then evolution is going against scripture.
There isn't much of a gray area there.
Of course that is a very big IF

Unless of course the story of the creation of man in Eden in Genesis 2 is different than Genesis 1 in that it refers to a "special creation" of Adam and Eve as opposed to a more "general" creation of mankind in Genesis 1.

Sorry Paul, it's too late for you to backtrack now. That ship has sailed. Your true anti-evolution feelings are already known to everyone. You've renounced Darwinism. You are free! Doesn't it feel great? Like a huge burden has been lifted off your shoulders.

Praise The Lord! PaulSacramento has finally seen the light!

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Genesis states clearly that Man was created from the Earth and NOT from another animal.

Paul,

Stop putting evolution down, or I'll get the Queen to ban you.

I bet that post surprise you, LOL

I knew evolution was indefensible from scripture. I'm just surprised you finally admitted it.

BWWAHHH !!! Nice one.

Yes, it is true that IF Genesis is to be taken as a literal and concrete telling of the origins of man, then evolution is going against scripture.
There isn't much of a gray area there.
Of course that is a very big IF

It is meant to be taken literal, it was literally written to make a theological point and not written as a science book.