What do Theists (including Christians) who believe in Evolution believe?

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe: in old-earth creationism with the ability for variety (after all look at all the varieties of humans that came out of two people). The earth is older than people and animals because the creative days are not literal 24 hour periods.

 

So... now that you know what I believe, I will only ask questions. My purpose is not witnessing in this thread. I am gathering. Thanks.

[Mandy in TN]

I enjoyed the excerpt from Beyond the Firmament and John Holzmann's comments in his Wednesday, January 28, 2009 blog entry. This pretty much sums up my feelings regarding The Big Bang and evolution. :D

 

http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html

 

Mandy

[Laura Corin]

My friend the Anglican believes that the universe was created through the Big Bang and the living things of the world came about through evolution, but that God was present through the entire process. I'm not sure to what extent she believes He directed evolution; I suspect it's more that He set it going, knowing where it would lead, if that makes sense.

 

Laura

[camibami]

I pretty much believe what Laura's friend does. Evolution was the mechanism by which God created life.

 

I'm Catholic, and tend to sum it up by saying the point is "God created" not "this is how God created". Knowing how is cool and all, but the point is, He did it!

[Night Elf]

Same thought for me. God created the world to be the way it is, science facts and all. I don't believe in predestination or an evil being like a devil.

[Melinda in VT]

I don't usually think of it in terms of "believing" in evolution. I accept the theory of evolution the same way I accept the theory of gravity--it's a scientific explanation that seems to fit the facts we have. Like any scientific theory, I expect it to adjust and change and become refined as we get more information. (I recently read Endless Forms Most Beautiful and found it fascinating.)

 

I don't feel any need to read the creation account in Genesis in a literal way.

 

That said, I look to science for an explanation of how the world works and to religion for guidance on what life means and how to best live mine.

[lionfamily1999]

I believe God created the big bang, or something like it. I believe God created evolution, as a way for us to grow and ... evolve. I believe that the creation depiction in Genesis is correct, but geared towards us at a time when explaining physics would have been a fruitless indeavor, as we were not equipped to understand such things then. (IOW, it's not wrong to tell a child that a mommy and a daddy fall in love and create a child; the other info. can come later, as they are able to understand more) I do not believe God created everything in seven literal days, but would not be surprised to find there were seven periods building up to the Earth we know today. I believe that science can find out how creation happened, and I believe that is all thanks to God using a system and formula we could one day understand.

[CookieMonster]

Old-Earth Creationists generally fall into one of four categories: Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic Evolution. I'll give you a comparison of the four with regard to the origin of life, origin of the variety of lifeforms, origin of man, interpretation of days of creation in Genesis, death and disease, and geological layers.

 

Gap Theorists

 

• Origin of Life: Life was formed millions of years ago by God and wiped out by a Luceiferian flood between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Then God recreated life as He said in the rest of Genesis 1.
  
• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: After the Luciferian flood God made new lifeforms "after their kind" and they have variation within their kind to produce the variety we see today.
  
• Origin of Man: On the sixth day of the second creation, God made man and woman supernaturally.
  
• Days of Creation in Genesis: Initial creation event was millions of years before the six, 24-hour days of the recreation.
  
• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.
  
• Geological Layers: The interpretation of the geological layers is not agreed upon among Gap Theorists. There are three camps. 1. The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual change. 2. The layers are evidence for the Luciferian flood. 3. They are evidence for Noah's flood.

 

 

Progressive Creationists

 

• Origin of Life: Life was created by God in spurts, and then as these lifeforms went extinct, God made other lifeforms to take their place
  
• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: Varieties of lifeforms were created by God when He created new species to replace older ones that went extinct.
  
• Origin of Man: God made man supernaturally about 10,000-60,000 years ago to replace soulless hominoids who seemed human because they buried their dead, played music, and had religious activities, but they weren't human.
  
• Days of Creation in Genesis: Each day was millions or billions of years long with overlap in some cases.
  
• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.
  
• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual processess.
  

 

 

Framework Hypothesis

 

• Origin of Life: The origin of life is not agreed upon among FH. Most hold to the theistic evolution view, and some hold to a progressive creationist view.
  
• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: The origin of the variety of lifeforms is not agreed upon among FH. Most hold to the theistic evolution view. Some hold to the progressive creationist view.
  
• Origin of Man: Man's body developed from ape-like ancestors through God-directed random mutations and natural selection. This animal became truly human when God supernaturally placed the image of God in it.
  
• Days of Creation in Genesis: The days of creation are only days on paper but not in reality - the creation took place over millions of years.
  
• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.
  
• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence of millions of years of slow, gradual processess.
  

 

 

Theistic Evolution

 

• Origin of Life: God created the first life in the form of a single-celled organism
  
• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: A single-celled lifeform developed information for things like ears, eyes, nose, etc. through mutations and natural selection to arrive at the various types of lifeforms we see today - but God guides it.
  
• Origin of Man: Man's body developed from ape-like ancestors through God-directed random mutations and natural selection. This animal became truly human when God supernaturally placed the image of God in it.
  
• Days of Creation in Genesis: The days didn't exist, and God allowed random, natural processess over millions of years to form the earth and the lifeforms.
  
• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.
  
• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual processess.
  

 

 

I hope that wasn't information overload...origins is an interest of mine.

[Veritaserum]

Theistic Evolution

• Origin of Life: God created the first life in the form of a single-celled organism
  
• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: A single-celled lifeform developed information for things like ears, eyes, nose, etc. through mutations and natural selection to arrive at the various types of lifeforms we see today - but God guides it.
  
• Origin of Man: Man's body developed from ape-like ancestors through God-directed random mutations and natural selection. This animal became truly human when God supernaturally placed the image of God in it.
  
• Days of Creation in Genesis: The days didn't exist, and God allowed random, natural processess over millions of years to form the earth and the lifeforms.
  
• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.
  
• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual processess.
  

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! That's where I'm at as of now. In the end, it doesn't matter much to me. God is still God. :)

[chaik76]

I pretty much believe what Laura's friend does. Evolution was the mechanism by which God created life.

 

I'm Catholic, and tend to sum it up by saying the point is "God created" not "this is how God created". Knowing how is cool and all, but the point is, He did it!

 

Ditto.

[Katrina]

I'm a Theistic Evolutionist.

[Jane in NC]

Old-Earth Creationists generally fall into one of four categories: Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic Evolution.

 

<rest of post snipped>

 

 

 

Thank you for posting this. I had no idea that there was such a spectrum of articulated beliefs in this area.

 

Fascinating.

Jane

[Lovedtodeath]

Old-Earth Creationists generally fall into one of four categories: Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic Evolution. I'll give you a comparison of the four with regard to the origin of life, origin of the variety of lifeforms, origin of man, interpretation of days of creation in Genesis, death and disease, and geological layers.

 

Wow, thank you! I don't fit any of the categories, nor do I fit any of the categories in my God's Design Science book.

[juls]

For those interested in a wonderful presentation on this topic, take a look at the online video series entitled Science and Christian Education from the author of Beyond the Firmament.

 

The videos are targeted to Christian educators who are teaching science to their children. The complete series is not yet finished but the segments that are posted are well worth watching. Each segment is about 10 minutes long so you can watch them in chunks.

 

The author, Gordon Glover, is an Evangelical Christian from a conservative reformed denomination (PCA), he is also a homeschool dad.

 

These videos (and even more so the book) have completely changed my thoughts about evolution and how it fits with Genesis. I highly recommend them, as well as the book.

 

Enjoy!

[Tabrett]

Old-Earth Creationists generally fall into one of four categories: Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic Evolution. I'll give you a comparison of the four with regard to the origin of life, origin of the variety of lifeforms, origin of man, interpretation of days of creation in Genesis, death and disease, and geological layers.

 

 

 

 

 

Gap Theorists

 

• Origin of Life: Life was formed millions of years ago by God and wiped out by a Luceiferian flood between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Then God recreated life as He said in the rest of Genesis 1.

• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: After the Luciferian flood God made new lifeforms "after their kind" and they have variation within their kind to produce the variety we see today.

• Origin of Man: On the sixth day of the second creation, God made man and woman supernaturally.

• Days of Creation in Genesis: Initial creation event was millions of years before the six, 24-hour days of the recreation.

• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.

• Geological Layers: The interpretation of the geological layers is not agreed upon among Gap Theorists. There are three camps. 1. The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual change. 2. The layers are evidence for the Luciferian flood. 3. They are evidence for Noah's flood.

 

 

Progressive Creationists

 

• Origin of Life: Life was created by God in spurts, and then as these lifeforms went extinct, God made other lifeforms to take their place

• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: Varieties of lifeforms were created by God when He created new species to replace older ones that went extinct.

• Origin of Man: God made man supernaturally about 10,000-60,000 years ago to replace soulless hominoids who seemed human because they buried their dead, played music, and had religious activities, but they weren't human.

• Days of Creation in Genesis: Each day was millions or billions of years long with overlap in some cases.

• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.

• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual processess.

 

 

Framework Hypothesis

 

• Origin of Life: The origin of life is not agreed upon among FH. Most hold to the theistic evolution view, and some hold to a progressive creationist view.

• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: The origin of the variety of lifeforms is not agreed upon among FH. Most hold to the theistic evolution view. Some hold to the progressive creationist view.

• Origin of Man: Man's body developed from ape-like ancestors through God-directed random mutations and natural selection. This animal became truly human when God supernaturally placed the image of God in it.

• Days of Creation in Genesis: The days of creation are only days on paper but not in reality - the creation took place over millions of years.

• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.

• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence of millions of years of slow, gradual processess.

 

 

Theistic Evolution

 

• Origin of Life: God created the first life in the form of a single-celled organism

• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: A single-celled lifeform developed information for things like ears, eyes, nose, etc. through mutations and natural selection to arrive at the various types of lifeforms we see today - but God guides it.

• Origin of Man: Man's body developed from ape-like ancestors through God-directed random mutations and natural selection. This animal became truly human when God supernaturally placed the image of God in it.

• Days of Creation in Genesis: The days didn't exist, and God allowed random, natural processess over millions of years to form the earth and the lifeforms.

• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.

• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual processess.

I hope that wasn't information overload...origins is an interest of mine.

What would you be called if you believed there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It just says in the beginning God created the earth. Then in verse 2 it goes on to say the earth was formless and void which can be translated into "wasteland". It sounds almost as if it was being remade from a previous creation (I know I'm in trouble for saying that). Verse 3 is when light is created and the first day is marked by this creation. The first day is not marked by the creation of the earth. The earth was just created "in the beginning". This would make it impossible to determine the earth's age.

 

And then if you take into account 2 Peter 3:5-8 which states:

 

 

"

5 They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water. 6Then he used the water to destroy the world with a mighty flood. 7And God has also commanded that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish.

8But you must not forget, dear friends, that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day." (NLT)

 

 

 

 

Which talks about creation and our day not having the same time frame (24 hours) as God's day. Which I take to mean God is on an entirely different time frame as humans and we don't have the comprehension to fully understand Him so he gives us the best example we can understand to try to explain.

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

 

 

Of the

birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. (NAS)

Gen 6:20

 

 

 

 

You believe that God sent 1 pair of a species like 2 felines on to the ark and not 2 of every animal. Seeing that "kind" is a translation for "species". And that the felines evolved, very rapidly, through natural selection or Divine intervention, into all the different kinds of cats we have today like tiger, lions and house cats.

 

And if God spoke words to create the universe; then He spoke and "bang" it happened. Which causes me to have no problem with the big bang theory.

 

 

 

 

What would I be called?:D

 

 

Edited February 4, 2009 by Tabrett

[Lovedtodeath]

What would I be called?:D

 

 

 

logical?:tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: I don't agree with every point.

[Guest Lorna]

You might enjoy this radio programme from the UK. The Christians, Jew, and Muslim on the programme accept evolution (this is the norm in the UK and Europe), and so the programme discusses how they view God's place in the scientific understanding.

 

Click on this link to the page and then scroll down to 5th January.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/beyond_belief/

 

This a great programme for learning about other faiths in general. The presenter is a Christian but conducts the interviews with great respect. I always listen whilst making dinner.

[dawn of ns]

Another great resource for Christians who accept or want insight into evolution is Thank God For Evolution. For kids and educational programs The Great Story is a fantastic resource. It covers the Big Bang, initial elements and gives evolution and science a sacred spin.

[dawn of ns]

You might enjoy this radio programme from the UK. The Christians, Jew, and Muslim on the programme accept evolution (this is the norm in the UK and Europe), and so the programme discusses how they view God's place in the scientific understanding.

 

 

That's pretty much the norm here in Canada as well. I remember being shocked when I learned there were Christians in the US who believed in a 6 day creation or some variation of creationism.

[lionfamily1999]

Wow, thank you! I don't fit any of the categories, nor do I fit any of the categories in my God's Design Science book.

I was wondering about that most of the night. I don't have a catergory, which led me to wonder, who decided what the boxes were and what beliefs to put in them. I mean, do we really need catergories and labels for everything?

 

I never even knew there were so many little pigeon holes for various ideals around creation/evolution. I just assumed that everyone had their own ideas based on what they knew and learned.

 

Can we add an 'other' catergory? You can put me in there :)

[Chris in VA]

Not sure where I stand on anything except God created. THanks for the thread--it sure is interesting!

[Pamela H in Texas]

Old-Earth Creationists generally fall into one of four categories

 

Unless I misunderstood, I don't believe any of those. I simply believe what the Bible says.

 

Basically, I believe that a "day" was longer than a 24 hour period (it didn't HAVE to be; God COULD have created everything in 6 literal days, but the evidence scientifically and through the Bible points to that He did it over more time).

 

I don't believe in macroevolution.

 

I believe God created a wide range of life from one cell organisms to plants to animals to humans.

 

I believe that lifeforms can/have change somewhat over time (microevolution?) (and that they will change a good bit when the earth and inhabitants are restored to their original purpose).

 

I believe God formed man.

 

I believe that geological layers are a combination of what God provided and nature over time.

 

I believe that disease and death came about due to sin just as the Bible says (that God stated his purpose for the earth and mankind, that Adamic sin has detoured that, that Jesus' Kingship will give mankind back perfection because everything God purposes DOES come to fruition).

Edited February 4, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[KarenNC]

I don't usually think of it in terms of "believing" in evolution. I accept the theory of evolution the same way I accept the theory of gravity--it's a scientific explanation that seems to fit the facts we have. Like any scientific theory, I expect it to adjust and change and become refined as we get more information. (I recently read Endless Forms Most Beautiful and found it fascinating.)

 

I don't feel any need to read the creation account in Genesis in a literal way.

 

That said, I look to science for an explanation of how the world works and to religion for guidance on what life means and how to best live mine.

 

I am of this mind as well. I think we do a great disservice to the sacred stories of any culture when we try to make them the equivalent of a history or science textbook in the way that we in modern Western civilization mean those two disciplines. Sacred story (and I include Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures in this) is about what it means to be human, how to do that and how to relate to that which is beyond human understanding. It is an attempt to describe encounters with spiritual reality using our limited human language and experience. It speaks to a deeper truth than a mere literal reading can ever give it.

 

Science and sacred story address totally different aspects of our lives.

[CookieMonster]

I was wondering about that most of the night. I don't have a catergory, which led me to wonder, who decided what the boxes were and what beliefs to put in them. I mean, do we really need catergories and labels for everything?

 

I never even knew there were so many little pigeon holes for various ideals around creation/evolution. I just assumed that everyone had their own ideas based on what they knew and learned.

 

I think the categories come about when a large group of people decide that they all believe the same basic tenets of a theory and they get together. That's all.

 

Origins belief is not science proper (observable phenomenon or repeated experiments). The facts are facts. Origins is an interpretation of those facts. This is a more important distinction than it might seem at first. What it means is that none of these people were there to observe the process, nor can we repeat the process in experiments. All we have are the left-over evidences of creation to try and extrapolate backward from.

 

Evolutionists see the rock layers and do their best to explain - sans deity - why they're there. Old-Earth Creationists see the rock layers, hear the evolutionists, and do their best to fit creation by God into their explanation of why the layers are there. Young Earth creationists see the same rock layers and interpret them through the lens of the creation account.

 

(FTR, because I do not wish to mislead anyone, I am a young earth creationist.)

[JFSinIL]

I believe God created the big bang, or something like it. I believe God created evolution, as a way for us to grow and ... evolve. I believe that the creation depiction in Genesis is correct, but geared towards us at a time when explaining physics would have been a fruitless indeavor, as we were not equipped to understand such things then. (IOW, it's not wrong to tell a child that a mommy and a daddy fall in love and create a child; the other info. can come later, as they are able to understand more) I do not believe God created everything in seven literal days, but would not be surprised to find there were seven periods building up to the Earth we know today. I believe that science can find out how creation happened, and I believe that is all thanks to God using a system and formula we could one day understand.

 

Sounds about right to me.

 

PS - I always tell the kids that dinosaurs came long before people because God wanted to have some fun and play with dinosaurs for a while before getting on with things. ;)

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

Theistic Evolution

 

• Origin of Life: God created the first life in the form of a single-celled organism

• Origin of the Variety of Lifeforms: A single-celled lifeform developed information for things like ears, eyes, nose, etc. through mutations and natural selection to arrive at the various types of lifeforms we see today - but God guides it.

• Origin of Man: Man's body developed from ape-like ancestors through God-directed random mutations and natural selection. This animal became truly human when God supernaturally placed the image of God in it.

• Days of Creation in Genesis: The days didn't exist, and God allowed random, natural processess over millions of years to form the earth and the lifeforms.

• Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.

• Geological Layers: The layers are evidence for millions of years of slow, gradual processess.

 

 

.

 

I'm a Theistic Evolutionist.

[lionfamily1999]

I think the categories come about when a large group of people decide that they all believe the same basic tenets of a theory and they get together. That's all.

 

Origins belief is not science proper (observable phenomenon or repeated experiments). The facts are facts. Origins is an interpretation of those facts. This is a more important distinction than it might seem at first. What it means is that none of these people were there to observe the process, nor can we repeat the process in experiments. All we have are the left-over evidences of creation to try and extrapolate backward from.

 

Evolutionists see the rock layers and do their best to explain - sans deity - why they're there. Old-Earth Creationists see the rock layers, hear the evolutionists, and do their best to fit creation by God into their explanation of why the layers are there. Young Earth creationists see the same rock layers and interpret them through the lens of the creation account.

 

(FTR, because I do not wish to mislead anyone, I am a young earth creationist.)

But in this case, as in most, I think the catergories take away more than they give. Sure, in certain circles you may find yourself wanting simple catergories (oh, that's old world creationism, but I don't believe that; for example), but in reality it loses all the nuance that most individuals include in their beliefs.

 

I am glad you listed them, I had no idea there were catergories that tried to get so specific. I just don't find them helpful and I don't believe the catergories have many that feel 100% about the box they may find themselves in. Granted, they also listed the alternatives (this is not hard and fast, some people think other things), but they seem to list more catergories than actual truths, if that makes sense. I know what I mean, but I doubt I have gotton my point across.

 

I don't fit into any of those catergories, maybe that's my problem ;)

[Pretty in Pink]

When I took Biology my freshman year of college I found it so interesting that the order of evolution presented in my text (simple, single cell organism living in water to more complex creatures living in water, to varieties of ocean life, to amphibians, birds and reptiles, etc.) basically lined up with the order of the six days of creation. Interesting stuff.

 

My personal beliefs most closely line up with Theistic Evolution, though I enjoy reading about all theories of evolution and creation, both young and old Earth.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have so many questions about the Dinosaurs and how animals have changed, and how sin changed the natural world, and not just humans. fascinating stuff

[dawn of ns]

Origins belief is not science proper (observable phenomenon or repeated experiments). The facts are facts. Origins is an interpretation of those facts.

 

That's what scientific theories are whether we're talking evolution or gravity; an explanation and interpretation of observable phenomenon (or Laws) and experiments and such. The Law of Gravity is basically that things tend to fall down. An observed fact. The theory to explain why that happens is...well, we haven't got a good one yet.

 

Origins belief (not a satisfactory term as origins could mean origins of life which is not an evolution issue), as an interpretation of the evidence, is working exactly as all other scientific theories, from Atomic theory to Germ theory do. Pointing out what you have doesn't mean they're any less compelling (apologies if that wasn't your intent!).

 

 

This is a more important distinction than it might seem at first. What it means is that none of these people were there to observe the process, nor can we repeat the process in experiments. All we have are the left-over evidences of creation to try and extrapolate backward from.

 

That's often how it goes and exactly what theories are for. The history of Atomic theory is very much the same. Most of the structure of atoms was sorted out before anyone had directly observed an atom.

 

Anyone who claims Theory of Evolution is true though deserves a slap upside the head. Science can't make truth claims. What can be said is that the vast majority of the scientific community feels it is the best interpretation of the evidence we have so far.

 

I actually often get annoyed with people on "my side," of this debate. They often do use words like true or have confuddled ideas of what theory or law mean. I often wonder if we all (from all sides) sat down and just talked about the terms and vocabulary involved if the whole debate might not be more interesting and insightful.

Edited February 4, 2009 by dawn of ns

[Sarah CB]

I don't usually think of it in terms of "believing" in evolution. I accept the theory of evolution the same way I accept the theory of gravity--it's a scientific explanation that seems to fit the facts we have. Like any scientific theory, I expect it to adjust and change and become refined as we get more information. (I recently read Endless Forms Most Beautiful and found it fascinating.)

 

I don't feel any need to read the creation account in Genesis in a literal way.

 

That said, I look to science for an explanation of how the world works and to religion for guidance on what life means and how to best live mine.

 

But, the theory of gravity has been proven to the point that it is now the "law of gravity", is it not? Whereas the theory of evolution has not evolved to that point yet...

[dawn of ns]

But, the theory of gravity has been proven to the point that it is now the "law of gravity", is it not? Whereas the theory of evolution has not evolved to that point yet...

 

No. There actually isn't one theory of gravity that has gained overwhelming acceptence or one that most scientists in the field are comfortable with. Compared to Atomic Theory or the Theory of Evolution it's much less advanced. We do have the Law of Gravity, an object dropped tends to fall towards the earth, but we have no satifying theory for that yet. We know the what but not the how.

 

That said, a law is not a progression from a theory. A theory isn't a law in waiting. A law is something we can gather from observation - Objects tend to fall towards the ground when dropped. Theories explain those laws - How that process of falling towards the earth actually works. I have a much better explanation in a blog post I did last winter.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think that Evolution is a hypothesis. A theory has to be proven. Am I not right with my vocabulary Dawn?

 

I've been meaning to tell you BTW that I love your avatar. I am very impressed that you designed it.

[Matryoshka]

I think that Evolution is a hypothesis. A theory has to be proven. Am I not right with my vocabulary Dawn?

 

 

Not quite. You are correct that in order to be called a Theory in science, it must have been rigorously tested and must hold up to challenges (although a Theory can and will be tweaked as new evidence is uncovered). Evolution is a scientific Theory, most definitely not a Hypothesis. Theories never become Laws or Facts - those two terms are much more narrow and are not interchangeable.

 

Here is a good explanation of the terms as they are used in science (Theory, Hypothesis, Fact, Law).

[Jane in NC]

I think that Evolution is a hypothesis. A theory has to be proven. Am I not right with my vocabulary Dawn?

 

I've been meaning to tell you BTW that I love your avatar. I am very impressed that you designed it.

 

Mathematical theories are proved, not scientific. Newtonian mechanics explains a number of physical phenomenon. Many theories that have been accepted as "laws" may be rewritten (or tweaked) as new facts at the quantum scale emerge.

 

Here is an example. Students going back to the time of the Greeks learned that there were three phases of matter: liquid, solid and gas. It was not until the 19th century that plasma was discovered. This does not mean that scientists in previous centuries were completely wrong. They just did not have all of the facts so the theory was refined.

 

Bottom line: Scientific theories fit the facts and are usually agreed to be true--until more puzzle pieces surface.

[dawn of ns]

I think that Evolution is a hypothesis. A theory has to be proven. Am I not right with my vocabulary Dawn?

 

No, it's theory. A hypothesis is sort of an initial idea you need to then go out and gather data and evidence for. A theory explains the evidence that's already present. Proven? More like accepted. Matroyshka has a good explanation and her link is good as well. BTW, misunderstanding the terms is something I've found common in people whether creationist or not and frankly, I didn't really get it until I researched and wrote that post I linked to in my last comment.

 

I've been meaning to tell you BTW that I love your avatar. I am very impressed that you designed it.

 

Thanks! I didn't design it to be my avatar but I posted it on a drawing blog I had and it seemed to be my most popular drawing and just lent itself to being an avatar. Probably the only drawing I've completely finished, from pencil to ink, in years. :D And darn it, I can't find my original drawing!

Edited February 4, 2009 by dawn of ns

[HRAAB]

I pretty much believe what Laura's friend does. Evolution was the mechanism by which God created life.

 

I'm Catholic, and tend to sum it up by saying the point is "God created" not "this is how God created". Knowing how is cool and all, but the point is, He did it!

 

This is pretty much what I think at this moment - could change. I guess theistic evolution most closely describes what I believe.

 

Janet

 

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you all for participating in this thread. I never really understood before how one could believe in both Creation and Evolution. Very interesting and eye-opening.

 

One thing that I have been thinking about is the history of plants. In the creation account in Genesis it states that plants existed before animals. If you do not believe in six literal 24 hour days, then they would have been around long before animals. Scientists seem to agree that the rock layers hold this point to be true. What I have found interesting as I am reading some of DDs books for our science program is that plants started out reproducing with spores, etc., that did not require animals for pollination. The pollination and seeds came later as plants changed or more plants were produced, what have you. Very intriguing.

 

Thank you for helping me to brush up on vocabulary. :)

Edited February 5, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[lionfamily1999]

Sounds about right to me.

 

PS - I always tell the kids that dinosaurs came long before people because God wanted to have some fun and play with dinosaurs for a while before getting on with things. ;)

Lol, we always say the dinosaurs were wandering around while Adam and Eve were still in the garden of Eden.

[Lovedtodeath]

I entertain the idea that the Behemoth and Leviathan were "pre-historic" creatures, but that's my own little idea. Not many agree with me. I also think that maybe all the dragon stories had something to do with live dinosaurs being seen somewhere. Mokele-mbembe stories and the like are my favorites. My screen name on my husbands gaming group is "the big hairy truth is out there".:lol:

[lionfamily1999]

Ds and I have discussed how fairies, hobbits and everything could have existed. He has some pretty good ideas for how they could have remained undiscovered by us, today.

[Mamagistra]

For those interested in a wonderful presentation on this topic, take a look at the online video series entitled Science and Christian Education from the author of Beyond the Firmament.

 

:iagree: Excellent, clear, and reverent explanations of the relationship between science and theology. I highly recommend these videos and am ever-grateful that you posted about them, Juls. :001_smile:

[juls]

Excellent, clear, and reverent explanations of the relationship between science and theology. I highly recommend these videos and am ever-grateful that you posted about them, Juls

 

I really think they are a VERY valuable tool for Christian homeschoolers. The book is also excellent and further goes into the how to look at Genisis through the world of the Ancient Hebrews. The author made the journey from Young Earth creationism to Evolutionary Creationism. The book deals more with theology then with science and is an easy read for science layman.

 

This is from Wikipedia:

 

In Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation, evangelical author Gordon J. Glover argues for an ancient near-eastern cosmology interpretation of Genesis, which he labels the theology of creation:

 

"Christians need to understand the first chapter of Genesis for what it is: an 'accurate' rendering of the physical universe by ancient standards that God used as the vehicle to deliver timeless theological truth to His people. We shouldn’t try to make Genesis into something that it’s not by dragging it through 3,500 years of scientific progress. When reading Genesis, Christians today need to transport themselves back to Mt. Sinai and leave our modern minds in the 21st century. If you only remember one thing from this chapter make it this: Genesis is not giving us creation science. It is giving us something much more profound and practical than that. Genesis is giving us a Biblical Theology of Creation."

 

Glad you liked the videos so much Mamagistra.

[squirtymomma]

Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.

 

It is interesting to me that all of the different versions (at least in this list) of Theist Evolutionists believe this. I'm guessing that in order to believe in evolution of species, death and disease must have always been present? Can someone explain why this is?

 

This seems directly contradictory to the Genesis account, no matter how you interpret it.

 

FWIW, I'm a Christian, and I know I don't believe in evolution of species by natural selection. Beyond that, I'm not sure what I think, but I tend to agree with the old earth theory.

[Donna]

I believe God created the big bang, or something like it. I believe God created evolution, as a way for us to grow and ... evolve. I believe that the creation depiction in Genesis is correct, but geared towards us at a time when explaining physics would have been a fruitless indeavor, as we were not equipped to understand such things then. (IOW, it's not wrong to tell a child that a mommy and a daddy fall in love and create a child; the other info. can come later, as they are able to understand more) I do not believe God created everything in seven literal days, but would not be surprised to find there were seven periods building up to the Earth we know today. I believe that science can find out how creation happened, and I believe that is all thanks to God using a system and formula we could one day understand.

 

:iagree: This about sums it up for me.

[Alice]

For those interested in a wonderful presentation on this topic, take a look at the online video series entitled Science and Christian Education from the author of Beyond the Firmament.

 

The videos are targeted to Christian educators who are teaching science to their children. The complete series is not yet finished but the segments that are posted are well worth watching. Each segment is about 10 minutes long so you can watch them in chunks.

 

The author, Gordon Glover, is an Evangelical Christian from a conservative reformed denomination (PCA), he is also a homeschool dad.

 

These videos (and even more so the book) have completely changed my thoughts about evolution and how it fits with Genesis. I highly recommend them, as well as the book.

 

Enjoy!

 

Thanks for posting this. These look great. I also highly recommend Francis Collins' book The Language of God for a wonderful explanation of Theistic Evolution.

[squirtymomma]

Death and Disease: Death and disease have always been a part of the world, as long as life has existed.

 

It is interesting to me that all of the different versions (at least in this list) of Theist Evolutionists believe this. I'm guessing that in order to believe in evolution of species, death and disease must have always been present? Can someone explain why this is?

 

This seems directly contradictory to the Genesis account, no matter how you interpret it.

 

FWIW, I'm a Christian, and I know I don't believe in evolution of species by natural selection. Beyond that, I'm not sure what I think, but I tend to agree with the old earth theory.

 

Replying to my own reply.... :) So, maybe this isn't specifically mentioned in Genesis, but death and disease being results of the Fall (and not present in creation before the Fall) is certainly an (almost) universal belief of the orthodox church... isn't it?

 

I'm still curious how it relates to evolution of species.

Edited February 5, 2009 by squirtymomma
added nested quote :)

[Pamela H in Texas]

maybe this isn't specifically mentioned in Genesis, but death and disease being results of the Fall

 

Actually, it IS specifically mentioned in Genesis. Nowhere except in connection with "the fall" is death mentioned. Death was simply stated as the consequence of sin.

[Alice]

Regarding the question about death...it also doesn't specifically say that nothing died until the Fall. Death is the consequence of sin but how did Adam and Eve even understand what death was if there was no death. Wouldn't it be a meaningless consquence? When Eve says to the serpent that God said if they ate the fruit of the tree "they would surely die" doesn't it seem that she understands what death is?

[dawn of ns]

It is interesting to me that all of the different versions (at least in this list) of Theist Evolutionists believe this. I'm guessing that in order to believe in evolution of species, death and disease must have always been present? Can someone explain why this is?

 

This seems directly contradictory to the Genesis account, no matter how you interpret it.

 

 

If you're not looking at the Genesis account as literal fact then it's not contradictory at all and in fact, is simply stating what the story states. If you see the Genesis account as myth (a story describing truth, not fact) then it's a story that really is about basic human truths: humans die, men work, women labour in childbirth, humans sin - it has always been so and ever will be so. The story also offers an explanation as to why that is but if it's myth, that explanation is secondary to the truths being communicated.

 

Hope that helps. Probably not but I took a shot. :D