I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Alate_One]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)


So here's a piece of evidence here:



A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?



Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

[Stripe]

It is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science.

Nope.

Evolution is just a theory.

When will Darwinists stop assuming the truth of their religion?

[Alate_One]

Nope.

Evolution is just a theory.

The Germ theory of disease is also, "just a theory". Should we start bleeding you to get your humors in balance?

Also, I notice you didn't answer my question.

Dinosaur tail with feathers . . .

[Bradley D]

Science often changes.

Evolution

1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Evolution is defined as the process of growth and development or the theory that organisms have grown and developed from past organisms. ... An example of evolution is the theory started by Charles Darwin that theorizes about how humans came to be in their present form.

Where is the link between man and ape?

Missing link, hypothetical extinct creature halfway in the evolutionary line between modern human beings and their anthropoid progenitors.

[Alate_One]

Where is the link between man and ape?

Missing link, hypothetical extinct creature halfway in the evolutionary line between modern human beings and their anthropoid progenitors.

There is no missing link. But there are certainly plenty of extinct hominins.

[Stripe]

The Germ theory of disease is also, "just a theory".

And?

You're the one who made the mistake, not me.

Also, I notice you didn't answer my question.

When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.

Stick to calling evolution a theory instead of "science" and a sensible discussion is possible.

Think about it: How would you react if a YEC accused you of "rejecting science" when the subject was flood hydrology.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Alate_One,

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

This is a subject that I usually avoid. I view it as if I am walking down a fairly main road and want to continue onto my destination, but I notice down a side street two groups of people strongly discussing Evolution vs Creation. I am reticent to get involved with your view as you seem from the interesting graphics in your posts that you have studied this and are well prepared and convinced of your position.

Possibly I have approached the subject, or rather avoided the subject as I am reasonably comfortable with two major concepts. The first is what Paul says in the following:
Romans 1:19-20 (KJV): 1 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (or to them); for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
My first question is based on the above. Do you believe that the present natural world is a clear evidence of God's creative power and wisdom and divinity? If you as an evolutionist say yes to this, why is it that many evolutionists use evolution to claim that God does not exist or is not needed? For example, everything happened by chance and the survival of the fittest.

The second aspect that has in the past been the basis for my continuing on my path and not go down the evolution vs creation side road flows on to some extent from the above quotation. When I look at the creation I have highlighted in my mind the fact that every species of plant, bird, animal and man can reproduce and I suggest that this is remarkable. Take the smallest seed of a tree and 20 years later we have a full large copy of the original tree. Same with birds and animals and humans, but with these you need a male and female. Unless you can inform me in simple terms how evolution can bring about this established result, then with these two aspects I will continue on my path and leave you and others to your ideas, discussion and thread.

Kind regards
Trevor

[ffreeloader]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)


So here's a piece of evidence here:



A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?



Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

Let's look at your claim. Evolution is an ideology that says there was never any supernatural forces at play in the development of life on earth. Zero supernatural causes of life and the development of flora and fauna. Creation is based upon the supernatural, God, speaking the world into existence. So, we have two mutually exclusive ideas in play. You claim to believe in a combination of both.

Furthermore, you are, in actuality, saying that the "time and chance" of evolution is the same as the "plan and purpose" of God's creation. Once again, mutually exclusive ideas that you say are one and the same.

I also have a question for you. Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? How about the widow of Nain's son? Did Jesus bring him back to life too?

[Alate_One]

And?

You're the one who made the mistake, not me.

Not a mistake. A theory in science is the highest level of certainty and understanding. But no scientific idea is 100% certain. After having so many discussions with me, you should know this and not continue to hide behind the "just a theory" trope.

[Stripe]

Not a mistake.

Yes, a mistake. Right here: "I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science."

Your beliefs are not "science."

We can rationally not hold to your beliefs and still be operating within the guidelines of science.

A theory in science is the highest level of certainty and understanding. But no scientific idea is 100% certain.

You made the mistake, and now you presume to lecture us as if it were us in error.

[Alate_One]

Greetings Alate_One, This is a subject that I usually avoid. I view it as if I am walking down a fairly main road and want to continue onto my destination, but I notice down a side street two groups of people strongly discussing Evolution vs Creation. I am reticent to get involved with your view as you seem from the interesting graphics in your posts that you have studied this and are well prepared and convinced of your position.

I am a biology professor so science communication is a big part of my job. I'm always looking to hone my skills though. I appreciate your candor on this issue, I know it is difficult for a lot of people.

My first question is based on the above. Do you believe that the present natural world is a clear evidence of God's creative power and wisdom and divinity?

I believe not just the natural world but the universe shows God's creative power. The ultimate question of this type is why is there something (a universe) rather than nothing. Many respected scientists have posited the idea of a multiverse, to explain this idea. But the multiverse is outside of the realm of science the same way the existence of God is. Their problem is we have shown scientifically that our universe has a beginning. Something that has a beginning would seem to need a cause. Except the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time so things "before" it might need to be outside of time. It makes at least some sense that this could be God. Scientifically this isn't proof of God's existence but it is interesting.

Biologically speaking I look at living organisms as not static things that God created as a human would a car or truck, doomed to fall apart without regular maintenance but a dynamic process of creation which still continues to this day, which protects living things from the ever changing world we live on. I believe God is in the creative process today and continues to support creation as a whole. But the created order follows rules that we humans can discover(science). The mistake some scientists make is to state that the rules are eternal and not the rulemaker.

If you as an evolutionist say yes to this, why is it that many evolutionists use evolution to claim that God does not exist or is not needed? For example, everything happened by chance and the survival of the fittest.

My church actually had a sermon on this point last week. People believe in God (or not) typically due to reasons other than a rational assessment of science. In truth science is agnostic with regards to the existence of God. Plenty of people down through the years have accepted evolution and God's superintendence and creation of nature. See the "Nothing in Biology" essay above for a famous believing evolutionist.

The second aspect that has in the past been the basis for my continuing on my path and not go down the evolution vs creation side road flows on to some extent from the above quotation. When I look at the creation I have highlighted in my mind the fact that every species of plant, bird, animal and man can reproduce and I suggest that this is remarkable. Take the smallest seed of a tree and 20 years later we have a full large copy of the original tree. Same with birds and animals and humans, but with these you need a male and female.

Evolution doesn't explain how chemicals became reproducing organisms. I think maybe it is a property of chemistry itself that under the right conditions, life is likely to form. That the formation of life is part of the design of the universe. Perhaps supernatural intervention is required to create life but we may never be able to know the answer this side of eternity.

Regardless, evolution explains the diversity of life originating from a relatively simple organism. Reproduction is an essential property of life and the process that makes evolutionary change inevitable.

You may notice that while living organisms reproduce, their offspring are never truly identical to their parents. There are always variations generated in different ways. Natural selection "chooses" individual organisms that are able to survive better in a specific environment.



This basic process keeps living organisms from going extinct and keeps the earth as our life support system. Larger changes operate along the same process.

The big turning points in the history of life on earth have occurred through singular events.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...urs-180949345/

Fossils like Tiktaalik above, show us how four limbed creatures originated. Given there were no vertebrates on land, and plenty of large predators in the water, the ability to walk on land would have been a huge advantage. Each group of organisms that has appeared had a specific advantage in different situations. The history of life on earth is a glorious story of survival that gives glory to God. I am happy to walk you through more specific examples if you like.

[Alate_One]

Yes, a mistake. Right here: "I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science."

Your beliefs are not "science."

Gee I was unaware that stripe's opinions are the final arbiter of what is science or not.

You made the mistake, and now you presume to lecture us as if it were us in error.

I'm a scientist and I lecture for a living. :P I study what science is as well as practicing it. You have your own ideas you've decided are fact without evidence.

Science is a collection of ideas and a process of studying the natural world. Scientific ideas must be testable and consistent with the data we observe. Evolution easily fits that description. The fact you don't like it, doesn't make it not science.

[Alate_One]

Let's look at your claim. Evolution is an ideology that says there was never any supernatural forces at play in the development of life on earth. Zero supernatural causes of life and the development of flora and fauna.

Sorry no. Evolution is simply the idea that living organisms have changed from a simple state to a complex and diverse set of living creatures we see today. The extent to which supernatural is involved is an idea outside of the realm of science. Science and evolution in their pure form make no argument whether the supernatural exists or not.

Creation is based upon the supernatural, God, speaking the world into existence. So, we have two mutually exclusive ideas in play. You claim to believe in a combination of both.

The ideas are not mutually exclusive. That's your problem right there. From the very beginning of evolutionary theory, people have believed God was involved in the process.

Furthermore, you are, in actuality, saying that the "time and chance" of evolution is the same as the "plan and purpose" of God's creation. Once again, mutually exclusive ideas that you say are one and the same.

Not mutually exclusive ideas. If you truly believe God is superintending the universe, then there's nothing that is truly "chance" then is there? There's a book called Random Designer that takes this idea and really runs with it.

I also have a question for you. Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? How about the widow of Nain's son? Did Jesus bring him back to life too?

Sure, I believe in miracles. They don't happen often but they occur outside of the normal functioning of the created order. They don't occur often, which makes sense because if the world truly behaved in a whimsical fashion, it would be impossible for us to study scientifically.

That was actually why many early scientists were Christian. Pagan and animist ideas posit that the world is governed by dozens of capricious spirits and deities. If such a world were true it would be pointless to try and study it because deities could simply change their minds randomly, changing results.

[ffreeloader]

Sorry no. Evolution is simply the idea that living organisms have changed from a simple state to a complex and diverse set of living creatures we see today. The extent to which supernatural is involved is an idea outside of the realm of science. Science and evolution in their pure form make no argument whether the supernatural exists or not.

The ideas are not mutually exclusive. That's your problem right there. From the very beginning of evolutionary theory, people have believed God was involved in the process.

Not mutually exclusive ideas. If you truly believe God is superintending the universe, then there's nothing that is truly "chance" then is there? There's a book called Random Designer that takes this idea and really runs with it.

Sure, I believe in miracles. They don't happen often but they occur outside of the normal functioning of the created order. They don't occur often, which makes sense because if the world truly behaved in a whimsical fashion, it would be impossible for us to study scientifically.

That was actually why many early scientists were Christian. Pagan and animist ideas posit that the world is governed by dozens of capricious spirits and deities. If such a world were true it would be pointless to try and study it because deities could simply change their minds randomly, changing results.

You didn't answer my question. Did Jesus bring both Lazarus and the widow of Nain's son back to life?

[Stripe]

Gee I was unaware that stripe's opinions are the final arbiter of what is science or not.

You've taken a contrary stance. I wasn't making a judgement of the content of your ideas, but on the strong implication that to reject your beliefs is to reject science.

I'm a scientist and I lecture for a living. [emoji14] I study what science is as well as practicing it. You have your own ideas you've decided are fact without evidence.

If you're such an expert, you should instantly recognize that the assertion of your belief as science is problematic.

Science is a collection of ideas and a process of studying the natural world. Scientific ideas must be testable and consistent with the data we observe. Evolution easily fits that description. The fact you don't like it, doesn't make it not science.

You just need to quit asserting its truth and denying competing ideas a place at the same table.