Robin
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009
|
| Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:02) | Okay, to recap, you've seen the existence of two killer incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that are taking place right here and right now.
1. God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity. Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.
2. God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought. In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans. No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.
******
Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.
3. Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God. Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image. Yet evolution denies this.
| Quote | "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."
---"Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007 |
| Quote | "The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man."
--- pro-evolution philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals, c1990. |
Okay, so you can see that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity on that one. Don't even try to fix it.
Let's go to the final killer incompatibility.
******
This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which says that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned (this event is called "The Fall.")
That particular negation is very bad, because if Romans 5:12-17 is historically false, then it's NO longer possible for Christians to tell anybody the meaning of what Christ accomplished or didn't accomplish on the Cross.
Because of the direct unavoidable historical parallels drawn between Adam and Jesus in Rom. 5:12-17, a non-historical Genesis necessarily means a non-historical Gospel. A historically inaccurate Creation (and Fall) account necessarily means a historically inaccurate Cross (and Atonement) account. Then you Christians out there got NOTHING to offer this planet anymore.
BTW, both Christians and non-Christians have pointed out this stunning situation. (For example, the Native American activist Vine Deloria Jr. in his book God is Red. calls attention to it)
Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:
| Quote | "Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.
"Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!"
---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978, p. 30.
|
Quite clear, yes? You see that, Deadman? How about you, Dale? You, Stanton? You see what evolution REALLY means, yes?
******
So there you go. Four Incompatibilities between Evolution and Christianity. Each one a killer, each one massive and huge, each one long-standing and intractable, each one clearly documented by evolutionists themselves.
Please review them and think them over during the course of this discussion. Sincere thanks if you choose to do so.
FloydLee |
Here's the problem with your thesis, Floyd:
| Quote | | 1. God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity. Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief. |
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. Philosophers and physicists might have opinions on how things got started that don't include your god, but that isn't the same thing as the TOE. Your god could very well have created the basis for everything and the TOE would be just fine.
So really, your Big First Point is that Some People's Opinions are incompatible with Christianity. Wow...that's some revelation there, but really it has nothing to do with evolution or the TOE.
| Quote | 2. God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought. In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans. No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches. |
This is the same argument as #1 above, but now you are just equivocating "does not include" with "denies". The TOE does NOT deny teleology, it just doesn't require such. Evolution can be explained without invoking some god, but that isn't the same thing as saying that some god didn't have a purpose in mind and used evolution to reach that goal.
| Quote | | 3. Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God. Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image. Yet evolution denies this. |
Once again, philosophers and armchair quarterbacks may well have opinions about what "image of god" means, whether it is true, and whether evolution allows for such, but the fact is the actual science - again, the TOE - has no impact on whether we were created in your god's image or not and whether your god used evolution to create us in his image. The TOE need not include such as part of its verbiage either; it just can't conflict with such a condition. And it doesn't - there is absolutely nothing about the TOE that DENIES the possibility that humans are the image of your god.
| Quote | 4. Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.
Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions. |
This one is a reasonable argument, Floyd...if you believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true and not allogorical and metaphorical. I would be very interested if you could actually point to a specific "Adam", where this "Adam" existed, nevermind when this "Adam" existed. The problem of course is that there is no mainstream Christian denomination that holds Adam to be a real figure and death before Adam having any meaning. In fact, considering that all biblical scholars and just about all Christian authorities agree that the story of Adam and Eve are allogorical, noting that the word "Adam" is hebrew for "Mankind", such is a very weak argument for the TOE being incompatible with Christianity. Seems to me that in this case you've just claimed that the TOE is incompatible with your fringe belief, which really isn't something that any other Christian will care about.
I can't seem to find the 5th point of the "Big Five", but I doubt that matters much.
--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis
|
