» Evolution vs. Creation: Preparing Our Children for the War Zone

Evolution vs. Creation: Preparing Our Children for the War Zone

“The teaching of evolution has HUGE implications for Christianity and the transmitting of our faith to our children. If you remove Creation you remove the Creator; and if you remove the Creator you destroy all moral constraint….” -Chip Ingram

The reason evolution continues to win the faith of so many, (despite widely accepted claims that its theories are insufficient), is that if evolution isn’t true, we have to answer to Someone. It changes everything about the way we live; the majority of the world doesn’t want to answer and so they simply choose to believe there is no Author of life.

I’ve heard Christians speak about the subject of evolution as if it were a minor thing; just a small erroneous teaching in the Science department.

Do we not comprehend the implications? They are huge! The theory of evolution creates (no pun intended) the foundational war zone between Christianity and its enemies. Our belief in Creation or evolution changes our entire life philosophy.

Last week we attended the premier of The Mysterious Islands, a documentary produced by Vision Forum in response to the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

What I appreciate so much about Doug’s efforts regarding science is his fervent passion to explain how fundamentally important it is that Christians understand the war being fought between evolution and Creation, and what it is doing to a new generation of people schooled under the tutelage of the former.

Though I’ve heard all the arguments and have no reservations about the proof that evolution (macro) did not give birth to this world, I want to become a student of the facts and theories so that I am better able to give an answer. And I would encourage parents to make this a vital discussion in your home. Help your children understand that all if life is to be viewed in light of its Creator and that He has not only displayed His glory over all the earth but that He demands our reverence and honor as our Creator.

We must all have faith to believe what we believe; even atheists have faith in order to believe there is no God. (Favorite atheist quote: “Atheist believe there is no God, and they hate Him.”)

Do not underestimate the vital battle for your child’s mind as evolution is propagated throughout our culture. It is NO small thing; it is, perhaps, the biggest insult to God that man ever dared to sling.

christian living | Word Warrior | December 4, 2009 10:07 am

54 Comments

By Princess Leia, December 4, 2009 @ 11:45 am

The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) is an excellent source for scientific proof for Creation, and Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) is an excellent source for the first 12 or so chapters of Genesis being the vital foundation for so very many of our Christian beliefs and practices.

Both have LOTS of materials for all ages to understand the importance of believing in creation.
By Rachel Falaschi, December 4, 2009 @ 11:50 am

I agree whole heartedly! I can’t believe how many Christians believe in evolution, because science “proves” it. Um, what?!!!! That is part of the danger of public schools. When an authority figure (teacher) tells a child something, or they read it in a school book, they believe it. This is not education. A real education encourages a student to study and look for the facts and come to a conclusion themselves. How many children (or even adults for that matter) would still believe if they saw the scientific research on both sides. I think most would be suprised to see creation has more “proof” than evolution which has little more than speculation.

I love this subject matter. This is the biggest reason I homeschool. (There are other reasons). Most Christians that I know poo poo the fact that their children are learning evolution. They saw there are more important things we should worry about and this isn’t one of them. I disagree. If there is no creator, then there is no Christianity.
Sorry for the ramble.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

Hi,

I haven’t commented here in a while, but I have to admit that I am curious about why the theory of evolution would threaten someone’s belief in a Creator God. Yes, I am an atheist, and yes, I accept the theory of evolution. But I don’t see my atheism as connected to my acceptance of evolution.

I am not a scientist but I have always understood that the theory of evolution merely describes the change from simpler to more complex life forms over time and the mechanism by which that occurs (i.e. natural selection), as well as the differentiation of such life forms into different species.

I don’t see how this excludes the possibility of a Creator. It may be that a Creator chose evolution and natural selection as the means for bringing about the human race and other species.

Just believing in God tells you nothing about what God did physically to bring about different species — just that God did it.

Science and religion deal with totally different and unrelated questions and answers. Science asks physical questions about the physical world. It is not equipped to either prove or disprove the existence of an invisible, incorporeal, ancient consciousness that somehow brought this all into being. Similarly, religion does not focus on the physical. For example, Christianity does not address how God physically accomplishes the creation or other miracles, and it does not address how God came into being in the first place.
By the cottage child, December 4, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

Isn’t it interesting that scientists have abandoned the concept of theory, the basis of research, when it comes to evolution (and now climate change)- I like to think that Darwin, despite his ego, is spinning in his grave that his scientific research has been turned into it’s own religion, the Dogmatic Church of Contrived Evidence and Speculative Conclusions. Sounds like incurious doctrine.

I thought only Christians did that.

It’s also more than a little ironic that there is more conclusive evidence of the existence of God than for that of evolution. Who believes in fairy tales, exactly?
By Civilla, December 4, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

Well, Elizabeth, I think the idea of evolution threatens the idea of Christ dying on the cross to pay for man’s sins. Man is the apex of God’s creation…we are created in the image of God, with the ability to create (foxes still have holes; birds still have nests, but we have air-conditioned buildings). Jesus, God’s only Son, never died on the cross to pay for the sins of any animal.
By Civilla, December 4, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

Elizabeth, I meant to say that evolution claims that humans are just animals, evolved animals, like the chickens and horses, etc. When you think you are an animal, you start to act like an animal, and aren’t humans these days starting to act like animals? That is the problem. Also, I don’t understand why liberals and evolutionists insist that us human-animals have to take care of the other animals (the spotted owls and snail-darters). Isn’t one of the main principles of evolution “survival of the fittest”? Who says one animal has to look out for another? All animals need to look out for themselves or become extinct, is how evolutionists should look at it, if they want to abide by their own philosophy. So, I think, deep down, nobody really believes in evolution.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

Thanks, Civilla. I guess I was ONLY thinking of whether evolution conflicts with the belief in a God who creates things, not whether it conflicts with every doctrine of Christianity.

But I still think you can believe Jesus died for the sins of humanity AND believe in evolution. Our species may have evolved from lower life forms AND be the apex of all life forms. In fact, as far as I can tell we are indeed the apex of all life forms on earth.

Here is where I DO see a conflict: There is a conflict between the belief in evolution and the literal belief that God created the world and all the species we have now in six days. Evolution could absolutely not have occurred in six days. (I believe there is also a conflict between the theory of evolution and the sequence in which God is described in Genesis as having created certain other types of animals.)

So, I think believing in evolution could challenge someone’s belief that everything in the Bible is literally true. But that’s not the same thing as challenging the belief that there is a creator God or that Jesus died for our sins.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

Oops, Civilla, I see your second comment addresses what I just said. Reading it now!
By the cottage child, December 4, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

Hi, Elizabeth – for myself, I appreciate the scientific theory of evolution much in the way you do – what I don’t appreciate about it is that the “theory” has been dropped and replaced with “fact”. There is really no such thing as scientific fact except in the area of chemistry, considered by many to be the only actual hard science, and even then environmental variables can alter results. Too much butterfly effect, to use a secular term, external variables, to predict results over time to a factual certainty.

I don’t take anything away from science when I say that God is capable of anything, and scientist are certainly part of the body of Christ and have contributed much to the world. I am unclear on the perverted obsession of much of the scientific community with reducing humanity to clumps of cells, advanced monkeys, etc. It’s scary actually, because the institutional dehumanization of those we deem inconvenient has lead to about half a dozen holocausts in just the last hundred years. I shudder to go back further than that. And dread looking ahead to the new Cult of Environmentalism. Stewardship is better, but no one will be allowed to say so. (wow, I’m so cynical today, sorry!)
By the cottage child, December 4, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

And ditto Civilla’s well stated points.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

I meant to say that evolution claims that humans are just animals, evolved animals, like the chickens and horses, etc. When you think you are an animal, you start to act like an animal, and aren’t humans these days starting to act like animals? That is the problem.

I do think I (and all of us) are animals. But animals have other attributes and behaviors besides just the fulfillment of physical needs. Some animals (like my dog!) have emotions. Some animals have a social structure (think elephants or wolf-packs). Some animals use tools. Some animals even have rudimentary languages. Some animals engage in altruism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

So it is true that I don’t see as distinct a dividing line between us and other species as you do. But it doesn’t follow from that I would just act like a chicken or a horse. I act like my species, which happens to be the only one (as far as I know) capable of abstract thought and the development of complex systems of morality.

Also, I don’t understand why liberals and evolutionists insist that us human-animals have to take care of the other animals (the spotted owls and snail-darters). Isn’t one of the main principles of evolution “survival of the fittest”? Who says one animal has to look out for another? All animals need to look out for themselves or become extinct, is how evolutionists should look at it, if they want to abide by their own philosophy. So, I think, deep down, nobody really believes in evolution.

Well, don’t forget that “survival of the fittest” is not a moral belief. It is just a description of what happens in the animal world. Just because many of us observe that nature is harsh doesn’t mean that is the way we should act towards other people or other species.

I am personally moderate on the issue of environmentalism and preserving various species. I can’t stand the idea of animals suffering, but I can’t stand the idea of humans suffering either. I also recognize that the extinction of species is the way of nature. So my general belief is that the preservation of species should be balanced agianst the needs of people.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

Hey Cottage Child,

I don’t see scientists as “perverted” or “obsessed” with portraying us as clumps of cells or advanced monkeys. I see scientists as following the evidence about our physical selves wherever it leads.

You know, Darwin was very unnerved by the fact that under his theory millions of animals had suffered and died for being less fit than their competitors. He didn’t necessarily like the facts that he believed to be true. It doesn’t follow to me that, just because a scientist believes something to be true means that he or she approves of it. If something is true, it is true, whether I or the scientist likes it or not.

But also don’t forget that scientists are generally describing what occurs physically (or their conclusions based on evidence of what occurs physically). It doesn’t say anything about the conclusions to be drawn from those things, or the value to be placed on say a clump of cells or an advanced monkey. Those are the issues that should be addressed by philosophers and theologians; they are outside the scope of science.
By Word Warrior, December 4, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

Elizabeth,

Without launching into the many details of the debate, in a nutshell, your question (“I am curious about why the theory of evolution would threaten someone’s belief in a Creator God.) begins to answer itself with something you mentioned–it presupposes that the Bible is fallible. And if what God said isn’t true, then God isn’t true. But that’s only the beginning…

As several have already touched on, evolution also presupposes that human life is not valuable–that is it’s logical conclusion. If we evolved from the original mass of meaningless material, then God did not create us with a purpose from the beginning. It all just came about by accident and He said, “Well, cool….guess we’ll go with that.”

But Scripture says, “all my days were written before there was yet one of them”…which means all of Adam’s days–the first man–were also written, which means God created each species, from the beginning, with a purpose and order and that changes who He is and how we understand our worth as humans–His beloved above all creatures.

A simple consideration of the way human life has constantly and continues to be devalued is the picture of evolution’s logical conclusion.

There are many more aspects of how this faulty world view has destroyed God’s purposes for our lives, but it would be a book.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

Cottage child,

I also wanted to address the idea of evolution as “theory” or “fact.” My understanding is that in science, a description of the world can be both a “theory” and a “fact.” A theory is simply a descriptive statement that is subject to proof or disproof by testing the physical evidence or the implications of the statement. If the theory holds up, it can be accepted as “fact.”

Evolution is accepted as a fact because thousands of scientists over more than a hundred years have amassed scientific evidence to support it. And in science, the process for accepting something as theory is extremely rigorous. You have to establish your theory via testing and re-testing (per the “scientific method) and your research is then subject to intense scrutiny by other scientists (the “peer review” process). While certain aspects of the theory have been revised and refined, the basic idea has been extremely successful in surviving the rigors of testing, evidence-gathering, and peer-review.

As far as I know, no challenge to the idea of natural selection has made it into a peer-reviewed journal ever. Because it doesn’t meet the criteria of science. Biologists routinely describe the evidence in support of evolution and natural selection as “overwhelming.”

Now I one hundred percent agree with Rachel’s comment that having an authority figure simply tell a child, “You have to accept evolution because I say so” is kind of silly. That doesn’t really teach anything. But when I went through school (a private school admittedly), we learned the scientific method, and how scientists arrived at and supported the theory of evolution and natural selection in light of physical evidence, observation, and predictive hypotheses. What seems the most important part is not whether a student accepts evolution but whether a child undestands the theory and how it was arrived and tested.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

Thanks, Word Warrior. I still can’t help but think that you can believe that God used evolution and that God imbued the “meaningless mass of material” with a particular value and purpose.

Of course, you and I do agree that evolution challenges the literal accuracy of the Bible. And that can be a problem for a person whose faith is based on a belief in such literal accuracy.
By the cottage child, December 4, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

Hi, Elizabeth – I understand that Darwin did not necessarily like his findings, subjectively. Many scientists don’t like what they find – Dr’s come to mind. My point was more that he was a scientist who operated in theory, not doctrinal directive, which is what the theory of evolution has devolved (pun intended) into. I find it puzzling that there is such a vehemence for this one theory to be considered absolute fact, no questions allowed or further research necessary, the “science is settled”, when a)that is not a scientific approach, and b)no, it isn’t settled. All the while, believers in Creationism are constantly researching, documenting, challenging one another both scripturally and scientifically, yet are referred to as obtuse, or just plain stupid.

In the human realm, I don’t think you can separate the physical entity from the moral (or amoral?) being with scientific honesty. The spiritual nature of an individual actually affects his or her brain chemistry as much as the physical chemistry affects other behavior. An honest evaluation of the physical can’t omit self-awareness – it IS the missing link, it is physiological.

I also can’t agree with the notion that science and philosophy should be managed as mutually exclusive. I think that leads to things like women not getting the mammograms and yearly exams they need, because the actuarial tables render them unneccesary. Science can influence morality, but not the other way around?

And sorry, I should have stated that some scientists have a perverted obsession with reducing humanity to merely the physical realm. I certainly do not believe all of them do. Again, Dr’s.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

Cottage Child,

Very thoughtful comment. First what we agree on: I definitely think morality should influence science. And I think it does influence science. For example, there are detailed ethical rules for testing on human subjects, all designed to ensure the consent and privacy of the people involved. Bioethics and medical ethics are booming fields.

As for the vehemence issue. First I should say, if there were ever a scientifically legitimate challenge to the fundamentals of the the theory of natural selection and evolution, it would cause a ripple of thrills through the scientific community. A person who came up with something like that would probably win the next Nobel prize and would be hailed along with Einstein and Newton.

The frustration and vehemence from the scientific community is based on the perception are avoiding the scientific method and peer review, and instead mounting their challenge in the court of public opinion — and public opinion doesn’t require rigorous scientific testing. It is a little bit like a lawyer trying his case in the press instead of the courtroom. In the press, you can say whatever you like without worrying about hearsay rules and cross-examination.

I admit to getting a little vehement about it. My own view — and this will sound very blung because I am being honest – is that the public relations successes of the creationists have made America a laughingstock and have degraded the quality of science education in our country. I would like my country to be successful in the global marketplace and I worry about a substantial portion of the next generation getting a skewed view of science in general and biology in particular.

From where I stand, it is frustrating because I don’t believe that the “challenges” are legitimate scientic challeges. They are not challenges in legitimate scientific publications, but rather challenges in the court of public opinion — and the court of public opinion is not bound by the rigorous methods for examining, testing, and accepting scientific evidence.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

Sorry for the typos.

That one sentence should read: The frustration and vehemence from the scientific community is based on the perception that CREATIONISTS are avoiding the scientific method and peer review, and instead mounting their challenge in the court of public opinion — and public opinion doesn’t require rigorous scientific testing.

Also I meant to say I was being “blunt,” not “blung.”
By Kim M, December 4, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

I am insanely jealous that you all had the opportunity to go to that (but also glad you did go)!
We came down for Thanksgiving, but Michael didn’t have much time off. So we didn’t have time off for us to come down early or I would have definitely gone (It would have been on our way!).
Thanks for posting. I was wondering if you all went.
By the cottage child, December 4, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

Hi, again, Elizabeth – Our world views, will cause divergence here because I don’t actually care much what the rest of the world thinks – I think they should stop throwing stones in their own glass houses. They have waxed critical, been afforded a false sense of luxury because while they enjoy wealth and exploit of resources, they do not pay for much in the way of their own defense. That bill is typically handed to us. Different conversation….biting the hand that feeds you is typically considered “unfit”.

As for the Nobel prize – not much credibility there either. Sorry, it’s a political beauty contest anymore. Obama’s was a gimme, but the one awarded Al Gore was a slap in the face to humanity – that he should win for what he actual did invent, the global warming crisis hype, over a woman who was responsible for saving the lives of children during the Holocaust? Please, just..no. It turns the stomach.

Peer review is an interesting topic – it has become increasingly difficult to have work evaluated. What constitutes a “peer” is subjective. Many scientists will not review the work of someone who disagrees with prevailing notions – as evidenced by the conspiracy to deliberately leave out the work of scientists – many who’s expertise surpasses that of the “peers” who are to do the reviewing – who dispute the causes and cures of climate change. If all your colleagues refuse to review your work, based on politics or fear of retribution, it’s fair to charge that there is no science involved in the conclusions being drawn. (Expelled, Ben Stein’s look into the insincerity of the scientific community in academia, outlines this quite well.) It’s become a “shouting down”, rather than a productive exchange, an inquisition, actually. I thought scientists weren’t supposed to like those.

As to the lack of a flourishing scientific education in the US – it’s not just science that’s suffering. The approach is all wrong – students are being taught WHAT to think instead of HOW to think… the secular school system operates in direct opposition to actual education. Now on that, I’ll go there with you, only it’s not the least bit funny.
By Liz, December 4, 2009 @ 3:12 pm

Hi, I guess I don’t know enough about evolution to be outraged (maybe that’s a good thing). Here’s my simplistic take on the origin of the Universe. LOL
1.”Big Bang”= God says “Let there be light.”
2. 6 days of creation are on God’s Time or a different calendar. “Years” have been measured differently by many cultures and at many points in history. I personally think it may have been longer than our modern measurement of 6 days. How long, I don’t know. Thousands of years is okay with me, as long as God is still the Creator.
3. Adam/Eve vs. monkeys. For me, I always figured that they were the first to have souls; animals do not. Maybe they were more apelike than modern man; they didn’t have hygiene like we do! I don’t think we are “monkeys”even though we share traits with them(just like we share traits with all mammals- easily observable-eyes, hair,warm blood,all that.) “Life,” God’s first living creatures could have been single celled organisms, then He worked his way up.

Part of the confusion for some lies in that there are 2 creation accounts where one has man first,and the other has man as the apex of creation.

I guess I really never felt a personal controversy (probably because I truly do not know all that evolution theory claims).

To me it seems bizarre that someone could even think that there is no God, or that creation happened by accident. It’s not a Christian thing, it’s a human thing (as in, have you ever seen the ocean/seen a starry night/watched the birth of anything??? There’s definitely a Creator!)
By Heather, December 4, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

“Origin of Life” doesn’t even belong in the realm of science. It more appropriately fits into history/religion.

Scientific findings are understood based on a person’s pre-existing belief about God.

God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and He knew there would one day be people who would devote themselves to the study of His universe while simultaneously denying His existence.

He is certainly capable of having literally created everything in 6 days and even deliberately making it ‘appear’ as though one life form has “evolved” from another to confuse the minds of those who arrogantly refuse to acknowledge Him and humbly accept that He is Who He says He is.

After all, the original sin of man was centered in wanting to “be god”. And when we insist on being god for ourselves , we cut ourselves off from the only true Source of knowledge and wisdom. We’re basically left groping around in the dark for answers.

Sadly, we Christians often try to find common ground with macro-evolutionists because we are afraid to be called “stupid” for believing in “unscientific” explanations of where we all came from.

But, science simply involves the systematic human study and attempted explanation of that which exists within our physical universe. The scope isn’t broad enough to be able to accurately determine whether or not God exists or created.

It is a matter of faith.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

Cottage child,

I can see where you are coming from with other nations’ opinions of us. Since you think you are right, it would make no sense for you to feel embarrassed. But it is embarrassing for me because I happen to agree with the foreign view that creationism is a big problem in America. For me, it is like having someone else point out a fault that you know you have.

My point on the Nobel Prize isn’t so much its credibility as the idea that the scientific community would embrace any scientific evidence dispelling evolution. I find the idea that scientists would be against such evidence really strange. I think scientists would find something like that really exciting. The disconnect with folks like the Discovery Institute is that the “evidence” has to be within the parameters of how knowledge is gathered in “science.” That’s not to say there aren’t other types of knowledge, but when trying to learn about the physical world and physical processes, science is the best thing we have got.

Heather says:

But, science simply involves the systematic human study and attempted explanation of that which exists within our physical universe. The scope isn’t broad enough to be able to accurately determine whether or not God exists or created.

Agreed 100%! I think you hit the nail on the head. I would also add that science does not purport to even address the existence of God.
By Word Warrior, December 4, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

Kim,

Sure wish you could have come! It was really nice meeting up with so many friends in one place–”inspiring” as my daughter said.
By Elizabeth, December 4, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Heather,

I agree with you that science does not address the existence of God.

But I really, really do not understand this:

He is certainly capable of having literally created everything in 6 days and even deliberately making it ‘appear’ as though one life form has “evolved” from another to confuse the minds of those who arrogantly refuse to acknowledge Him and humbly accept that He is Who He says He is.

When you say that atheists are “arrogantly refus[ing] to acknowledge” God, it sounds like you are saying that they really do know there is a God, and that they are intentionally denying Him, knowing full well that He exists. But then you say these people’s minds are “confused” and that God perhaps “confused” them deliberately. Being honestly confused is completely different than arrogantly refusing to acknoweldge God.

And it seems to me that if God wants acknowledgment of His existence, then He wouldn’t deliberately confuse people. Doing that and then punishing them for being confused would be pretty unjust, wouldn’t it?

I guess I just don’t see how being an atheist is “arrogant.” It really just means, “I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe in a god.” It just means non-belief.
By the cottage child, December 4, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

Elizabeth – there is the problem, I think. If people in or out of the US think that Creationism is the crux of the problem in American education, they’re completely wrong. It’s interesting that a system that has not taught Creationism for the last 40 years is blaming Creationists for it’s troubles. There’s a lot to be embarrassed about with regard to our school systems, and I am, but that’s not why. The argument is something of a straw man as I see it.

I realize my point didn’t address yours directly with regard to the Nobel prize – I really don’t know why it’s so highly regarded anymore considering it is no longer the prize of Einstein’s day, rather a social commentary. Scientists in particular would do well to leary of it.

I still can’t agree with you that scientists would be excited about evidence of creation – first of all, much has been presented and dismissed without review. And again, I give the example of the exposure just this week of the mainstream scientific community conspiring to obfiscate contrary evidence and malign dissenting colleagues with regard to climate change. The rules regarding review are now fluid, apparently. There is a political agenda in play, and I cannot imagine that it wouldn’t apply to this subject as well. The best indicator for future behavior is past behavior – behavioral science has proven it .

Anyway, I make no apologies for bias here – I think this might be the only time I’ve ever disagreed with anything Heather has posted (hi, Heather!). It is a matter of faith,as Heather concluded, but it’s also a matter of fact…I’ve got a 66.67% percent lockdown based on eyewitness testimony – Christ has died, Christ has risen….that’s better stats than the Evolution theorists have. It gives me good reason to presume the rest of the Bible is true – faith is the cherry on top. The last 33%, that Christ will come again….to me, it’s no Mystery – God is reliable like that.

I am not a literal translation believer – I love the poetry and allegory of the Bible and appreciate the way God writes for his audience – a bride who likes to be courted, even after marriage. My ultimate argument against evolution being presented as the final dictum rather than a possible theory, aside from the fact I do believe in the Creator, is that there is every bit as much evidence FOR creation and a Creator as there is for evolution – more, even. I cannot get past the abject refusal by the scientific community to be challenged on this – that’s their job. Challenge and trial is what science is. That’s what I find embarrassing, that willingness to be so smug, so deliberately deceptive, so subject to the whims of public opinion.
By Heather, December 4, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

Elizabeth,

I hope my comment was not taken as a personal stab at your atheistic perspective.

The explanation of my use of that term is one reason why a preservation of the literal Creation account is so precious to Christians.

What happened in the Garden with Adam and Eve has affected every human being ever born because we all have come from that original couple. When I speak of “arrogance”, I mean that it is the now-natural tendency of ALL of humanity–even professing believers who have been shown by the Lord what we are really like.

It is an inborn “desire” to make up our own rules and determine for ourselves what is right and wrong. We measure our performance by that of other imperfect humans and think if we are doing “better” than someone else, we are a “good” person. We tend to look at the Hitler’s of the world and most of us think of him as despicable. But, even the best of us still falls horribly short of the perfection that God IS just by being who He is.

We don’t like to admit that every one of us is sinful according to God and as long as we ignore the standard that the Bible presents, we can fool ourselves into thinking that we’re doing okay and “if” there is a God, He certainly won’t hold it against us for not believing He exists.

It’s why we need Jesus, who came to live the perfect life that we cannot and pay for the horrendous offenses that we have committed against a Holy and just God who cannot tolerate our imperfection in His presence. Actually, it is likely that if we faced Him in our sinful state, we would end up writhing in agony just because we arent powerful enough to protect ourselves from His awesome brilliance.

God wants to protect imperfect people both from ourselves and from His own just and righteous nature. But unless we are willing to accept what the Bible tells us as true (even if we cannot make perfect sense of everything), and ask for this amazing, free gift He won’t cover us. He isn’t going to force us to be a part of His family–He wants us to want Him.

The Lord has directed me recently to contemplate this subject I posted some thoughts on my site. You are welcome to pop in and browse. If you are really looking for answers, I would love to visit with you.

This might help explain why “non-belief” is actually the core problem
http://onmysoapbox2.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/the-slow-learner-looks-at-faith/

This post takes a look at “what went wrong” with people and why Christians talk about “repentance from sin” (which is mainly the sin of not believing God)It might better explain why I use the word “arrogant”. http://onmysoapbox2.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/the-slow-learner-contemplates-repentance/
By Heather, December 4, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

Oops, forgot to speak to the confusion aspect.

The confusion is naturally what happens when we don’t trust that God is telling us the truth through Scripture.

Jesus is described as the light of the world. He gifts the Holy Spirit to those who will humbly ask for His help and we are able to better see things from God’s perspective.

When we insist that we cannot believe in God because we don’t have enough proof, He will leave us to our own devices to try to figure out what we ought to do, be, where to go etc. In a similar way to when we turn off a light in a windowless room, our ability to reason about God’s world is also darkened when His light of understanding is removed.

We become confused because we can’t see at all even though we think we really can.
By Word Warrior, December 4, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

Elizabeth (and any others)…

I’m curious about the amount of non-biased study you’ve given to Creationism…
By Heather, December 4, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

Hey Cottage Child

You’re right. I’m not going to argue that there is reliable historical evidence for Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

Still, when it comes down to my day to day existence, I have to place my trust in God’s trustworthiness and future promise of resurrection and eternal life for those who love Him.

When I find myself struggling, thinking I wish I had something more concrete to hold onto, I recall:

” The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Unless I shall see the print of the nails in His hands, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe.
And after eight days the disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace to you!
Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed.
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
But these are written so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life in His name.” John 20:25-31

(I love this passage!) What an awesome thing that Jesus Himself said that those who believe in Him without visible “proof” are blessed!
By Civilla, December 4, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

I think that if I couldn’t believe the Biblical account of creation, I couldn’t believe anything in the Bible. You can’t just pick and choose. If it is wrong about creation, maybe it is wrong about salvation, and everything else.

Even in a secular book, if I find an important error (and the subject of creation is important), I have a hard time believing anything in the book.

We’re very blessed that in our school, the teachers just avoid evolution, since most of them are Christian, and also since they know it wouldn’t go over big since most of the students are church-goers. Also, almost all of the teachers are related to the students, so they wouldn’t want to teach it to their relatives, whose parents would disapprove.

The jr. high. science teacher, a young lady who is local to the area, started to teach evolution, but my younger son and his friend protested, so she said, “Oh, well, we’ll just teach creation and then we’ll all be happy.”

Luckily, we live in “America’s Outback” and nobody cares what we do. We don’t have up-to-date curriculum, either, because we are a poor state and cannot afford textbooks. My childrens’ books were from the early 70’s and literally held together with duct tape. There’s a lot to be said for being poor.
By Civilla, December 4, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

It’s good, like you said, Kelly, to be informed on this subject, since it is good to have an answer, and it is good for your faith.

My children heard a lot about evolution in Sunday School. Their teachers taught a lot against it.

As for younger children, like middle-schooled age, when they first hear of things like evolution, I found that a light-hearted approach rather than a serious one worked for us (a little New York sense of humor — you may not want to do this):

I’d tell my children, “You DO come from monkeys — look at you!” I’d usually tell them this when they were not behaving very nicely. Or, I’d tell them, “You’re devolving back into monkeys — look at you!”

They’d get really insulted and tell me defiantly, “We DO NOT come from monkeys!!!”

Even young children instinctively know they are not evolved from animals like monkeys. The idea does not need to be taken seriously, imo.
By Civilla, December 5, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

I meant to say, not taking it too seriously with YOUNGER children is perhaps the right way to go; for older children and adults, you can’t have too much STUDY, to help your own faith and give an answer to others.
By Elizabeth, December 5, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

Hi there.

Heather, thank you for your explanation. That makes a lot more sense to me. And no, I didn’t take your comment personally at all.

Word Warrior asks how much time I have spent on a non-biased study of creationism. I have read a bit of creationist or “intelligent design” arguments. I have, of course, also read the Bible, many parts of it more than once. (I believe that an educated person should have thorough knowledge of the theory of evolution AND of the Bible.) I also have read extensively on the sites sponsored by the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis as well as other creationist / “intelligent design” sites.

It has been a lifelong fascination for me to try to understand that point of view, because, frankly, it seems completely strange to me. I am not sure my study of this issue counts as “non-biased” because I certainly evaluate the arguments I have heard by scientific criteria. Again, I am not a scientist but I have enough of a working knowledge of science that I can understand and form some opinion of the back-and-forth between the creationists and the professional biologists.

I admit that the biologists have more credibility to me. Perhaps that is a bias. I don’t have a detailed or personal knowledge of the fossil record or the DNA record or the geological record, but I trust the biologists’ conclusions because I trust the scientific method more than arguments based on faith or the Bible, at least with regard to the physical world. (The Bible, I think, has value in other areas — just not science.) I have also concluded that the “intelligent design” arguments, while often sophisticated and dressed up to sound like science, are not really scientific. They do not propound falsifiable hypotheses. They also often criticize “materialism” which seems like a very anti-science position to me. The whole point of science is to understand the material world. If we never tried to understand it and just accepted that “God did it,” we would not have much of the technology or medical science we currently enjoy and benefit from.

I do think that to understand an argument it is important to hear what the other side has to say in their own words — and not just quotations selected out of context. I think sometimes creationists look silly because they don’t really understand that the theory of evolution. You might want to check out a book designed for a general. non-scientist reader from the standpoint of a scientist who believes in evolution. The one that comes to my mind is called “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne, though I haven’t read it myself. He also has a website by the same name (though he and his commenters are not very kind to creationists).
By Elizabeth, December 5, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

I also wanted to address the issue of why I am blaming creationists for the degradation of science education when creationism isn’t even taught in public schools (not counting certain teachers who break the law). First, I note that many public schools simply avoid controversy by not teaching evolution at all, or glossing over certain aspects of it like human evolution. But the real problem I have is that you are all teaching creationism to your children in rather large numbers and encouraging them to ignore the theory of evolution if they are taught it. Surveys show that a very high proportion of the American population (and certainly high in comparison to other countries) rejects the theory of evolution. I hear that and I think of all the potential scientists in that group that we as a nation are losing. You guys are winning the PR war in this country, and as a result, we may be looking forward to a massive brain drain in the sciences, which is especially of concern in the field of medical science. At the risk of sounding harsh, I see this as a step towards turning the wonderful nation I love into a third world country.

But let me clear: I 100% support your LEGAL RIGHT to teach your children creationism. Problematic as I find it, the problems I foresee are a necessary price we may have to pay for the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

HEATHER: I wanted to thank you for the referral to your site which I really look forward to reading. I can’t write now because I promised my husband we would bake Christmas cookies together while the snow is falling. I wish I could share them with all of you as a little sugar to make the harshness of my comments go down!
By the cottage child, December 5, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

Hi Elizabeth, not to belabor this issue, but I’m going to belabor the issue….I don’t agree with your point of view that the public at large accepts Creationism above Evolution. You can take a poll at a church on any given Sunday, and with rare exception, a congregation will reveal that while they think the Creation story is all well and good, Darwinian theory is what is accepted as the origin of species, including man, be it facilitated by the hand of God or otherwise. There isn’t even concensus among Christians on this subject (or other mainline religions, really), most adopting the evolution with God’s help, (small “c” on purpose) catholic inclusiveness clause built in. Churches have become some of the most PC places on earth. There is a vocal group that advocates for the renewal of the teaching of Creation in the church, and there is, as there should be, a reintroduction of the Bible for historical and literary reference in elective coursework. By and large, though, the secular voice dictates curricula.

Again, I think there are political agendas in play, proponents of which would really like to blame Christians in general for the failings of the US public school nightmare, but it’s a lame argument when the picture in it’s entirety is revealed. I can study science all day long and not take one thing away from God – fossils, cells, weather, the periodic table of the elements – and my belief in God does not take one thing away from my study and understanding of the those things in the physical world. I would argue that my belief in God assigns each of those things a deeper meaning because I see them, and their study, as having been entrusted to me, rather than just some cool thing that showed up around some time who knows when? Maybe 4-8 million years ago? Kind of vague, really, when you think about it.

And now I promise I’m done, I wish had some of your cookies, too, but not because I think you’re harsh.

And Heather, I was rereading a portion of a comment I made that appeared trite in reference to faith – it isn’t just the cherry on top – it’s everything, as you said – the immovable chair in the middle of the very large room where my feet are set.

Merry Christmas!
By Heather, December 5, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

Elizabeth said: HEATHER: I wanted to thank you for the referral to your site which I really look forward to reading.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are welcome to read and comment as much as you like, whenever you have time.

My kiddos have been asking about Christmas cookies too

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One general observation that I wanted to toss out is that the problem we have in our educational system is NOT a “Creation vs Evolution” thing. It’s a “no God” thing under the guise of “separation of church and state”.

I’m not interested in trying to “Christianize” our Public school system but I think we are simply hacking at fruit instead of roots when we make much of creationism vs evolutionism.

We Christians have often gotten ourselves sidetracked by the “pictures” of God that Scripture give us. It happens. We are human and imperfectly trying to follow our Lord.
To engage in debate about one or another aspect of Scripture while sidestepping the glorious, risen Savior who is the whole Point of our reverence of God’s Word is, in effect, idolatry.

We always need to be brought back around to the truth that EVERY aspect of Scripture is meant to point us to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He said it Himself in His scathing remark to the pridefully “perfect” Jewish leaders. (John 5:39-40)

If we get stuck debating with each other and non-Christians about “how” God made the world or whether homeschooling is the most effective way to grow the Kingdom or whether our government is flushing society down the toilet (or if it’s the other way around)etc we are missing the Point. And in doing so, we obscure the simple truth of the Gospel that humanity (ALL of us) was made specifically to have a loving relationship with a heavenly Father who desires to take care of all of the frustrating “details” of life as we simply obey Him (agree that He is God and submit to His discipline) and enjoy His goodness while holding to the promise of Eternity with Him.

He has given us one basic instruction…..which was summarized by Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived long enough to “royally” mess up his life.

” The Preacher sought to find pleasing words, and uprightly he wrote words of truth.
The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings which are given by one Shepherd.
My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil”. Ecclesiastes 12:10-14

“Man” is not wise. We need God’s constant supervision of our activities. It is only when we humble ourselves and cry out “I DON’T know! Jesus, save me–Daddy teach me” that the Lord will graciously scoop us into His arms and show us what it looks like to walk in a God-honoring manner.

Only One Man has ever loved the Lord with all of His heart, soul and strength. And only One has kept all of the commandments in all holy wisdom. And we crucified Him. Yet as He was dying, He asked the Father to forgive because we are foolish and didn’t know what we were doing.

It’s all about being reconciled with and getting to know Him. That’s all this has EVER been about.
By Rachel, December 5, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

Kelly, I completely agree! There seem to be many christians who now try to synthesise the theory of evolution with the biblical account, and argue that God used evolution to create – but it doesn’t work! With evolution, creatures supposedly evolved through a slow process of death and gradual improvement, culminating in man – in which case, if evolution is true, there must have been death before the Fall in order for man to come into being. But the Bible clearly teaches there was no death before the Fall. Do we then start believing there was no literal Fall? in which case, the doctrine of orignal sin becomes shaky. And with no doctrine of orignal sin, why do we need a Saviour? The whole nature of the gospel changes! If we start to believe there was no literal first Adam, we can end up believing there was no literal second Adam!
By Civilla, December 5, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

That’s a VERY VERY good point, Rachel. See, there is a domino effect. If the beginning point is wrong, what about all the points after it?

Oh, and Elizabeth, the reason there are 2 accounts of the creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is because Genesis 2 seems to me to be a re-capping of the Creation story in a briefer form.
By the cottage child, December 6, 2009 @ 11:33 am

Heather – May I agree and disagree with your last comment ?

Your fundamental point, that the point is Christ and our relationship with Him is spot on undeniably correct. However, when the “personal” part comes in, I think it develops and becomes real in different ways for different followers – we’re given the example of the Disciples as they each negotiated their humanity in the presence of the Supernatural. Sometimes the hashing out, the sifting, is what clarifies and sharpens the focus. Does that make sense (rather, am I making any sense?)?

And to use your excellent example of the parent/child relationship we’re invited to share with God, I look at my own children and see them each with diffent abilities and weaknesses – my parenting doesn’t change, the standard is consistent (Lord, hear my prayer!), but they each approach me differently, individually, the instruction is tailored to engage them. They can each be doing a different thing at any given moment and still be considered to be doing something right, good even. I see that in my own relationship with Christ – He stays exactly the same, from everlasting to everlasting – I change and stretch and make wrong turns and find my way back – because He’s always where He says he’ll be, the fresh-breathed words on the page as relevant now as ever. He allows me fresh appreciation and understanding of Him.

To the point of this particular conversation, the teaching of Evolution being the absolute denial of God both spiritually and institutionally, I believe it is the battle ground for our children’s hearts, and has significant ramifications for other “Christian” causes as well. I feel very much that it is, in fact, about the glorious risen Saviour . He exists, gratefully, whether any of us believe it or not.
By Heather, December 6, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

Cottage Child,

I think we actually agree. My point was not to make light of the individual nature by which God transforms each of us. Rather, that there is a tendency to latch onto that unique thing by which God has spoken to an individual and insist that is the “key” to all Christian truth. In reality, Jesus is the key, even though He may speak to us in totally different ways.

As parents, I believe we have been given the responsibility to be “watchmen” over the gates of our children’s hearts. The task is far too big for us to handle alone and should keep us on our knees as we seek direction. I’m thinking mainly of myself here, and my frequent forgetfulness in that area

Certainly, the things we allow them to see, read and otherwise absorb will affect their ability to see God for who He is. And even though Jesus won’t lose anyone who is His, we can be partly responsible for a lot of pain and misery that a child must first endure if we neglect to train him properly from a young age. I’ve often shuddered about the millstone necklace picture that Jesus paints for those who would stand in the way to prevent any child of His from coming to Him.

In my perspective, the teachings of evolutionary theory are not so different from the pagan myths about how the world came to be. It involves doctrine that specifically complements the religion of secular humanism and we should never view it as anything but.

When I was writing about the “main point” I was just thinking that, as we discuss with non-believers, it is possible to get sucked into a whirlpool of debate that centers on evolution vs creation and end up forgetting WHY we must not compromise on creation.

Sometimes, it is best to not press the issue with those who don’t really want to know. You know?

I’m pretty sure we are on the same page here…
By Elizabeth, December 7, 2009 @ 9:47 am

Thank you all for the discussion! I am getting sucked into the work week, so am not able to respond at length to all the new points.

I should mention with regard to the Genesis accounts — I agree that the second version is just an abbreviated version of the first and not necessarily contradictory (though it arguably, but not necessarily, has the appearance of two different myths incorporated together). I think someone else mentioned that issue in this thread, not me. As you can see in this thread, I haven’t made any argued the reasons why I do not believe that the Bible contains literal truth. That’s a big issue, so I confined my comments in this thread to the evolution issue.

The separation of church and state is another huge discussion — but I bet you can guess where I come down on that!
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

I agree with you about being educated, Kelly. I do not believe we came from apes or that evolution created us, but I DO believe that certain animals have evolved within their OWN species: some cormorants no longer fly, certain cavefish no longer have eyes, and I don’t approve of the VF’s attempt to deny the clear evidence of evolvement within a given species or try to declare this as evil.
By Word Warrior, December 8, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

Jennifer,

Please be careful before assumptions are verbalized. (VF takes the brunt of false assumptions all the time, and I’m really sensitive to the need for accuracy in relaying information about another person or organization due to their attacks from all sides using this tactic.) Vision Forum expressly explains their belief in micro-evolution. Doug mentions it specifically in the documentary. They only deny macro–changing from one species into another.
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

Huh. My mom saw part of it, and she thought they gave the clear impression that they didn’t like micro-evolution. I thought this was confirmed when Doug tried to use flightless cormorants as proof that any evolution was false (since cormorants were weakened rather than strengthened by this). Thank you for the confirmation, I beg your pardon.
By Word Warrior, December 8, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

Jennifer,

Not intending to use your post as an example, but it comes at a ripe time since I’ve just finished up reading about a whole host of slanderous things about VF that I *know* to be untrue. (Of course the untruths are usually couched in “mostly true” so that the deception seems strikingly real and believable.)

(Again, Doug Phillips, in Mysterious Islands spent a great deal of time “glorying” in the way God organized micro-evolution and how it is evidenced in the animals they witnessed on the island.)

This comment was just an example of the way deception is spread. One person (probably looking for something wrong?) passes on a completely inaccurate piece of information and that continues to be spread around (and in the blogosphere at lighting speed) and just like the game of gossip, it usually changes at least a little each time it is repeated.

Before you know it, people are believing complete lies and slander about upright, God-honoring people.

It is absolutely heart-wrenching to me. Particularly because my spiritual gift involves a strong sense of justice and honesty.

It just shouldn’t be in the body of Christ. Exposing falsehood and deception, yes. But making up stuff about men whose message (though it line up with Scripture) we don’t like, no way.
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

I haven’t made anything up. I happen to know several truths about the VF as well, from their own lips, and their truths dishearten me more than any falsehoods surrounding them.
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

And briefly, lest you think I’m referring to some shadowy rumors about the VF, I was referring in my last post to some of their beliefs, published on their website, which have saddened me.
By Word Warrior, December 8, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

Jennifer,

Keeping things clear…I read Driscoll’s quote. He refers directly to Paul’s writings for his conclusion on women’s position of leadership in the church. His stance is: “all ministries are open to qualified women with the singular exception that women cannot be ordained as pastors/elders.”

As for the Bible quote he uses to reach his conclusion (as well as most conservative Christian pastors):

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

you said:

“The Bible does not say that women are more easily deceived because one woman grabbed the fruit.”

How do you reconcile your conclusion with Paul’s above one?
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

Paul referred to one woman, Kelly. How do you see that as reference to all women?
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

Oh Kelly, there’s a misunderstanding here anyway, I realize: I was not referring to Driscoll’s reason for thinking women can’t be pastors (though that is the weakest argument I’ve seen in the book). I’m not offended perse about him or any conservative pastor thinking women are limited in ministry, even if I don’t agree. No, the quote of Driscoll’s I was referring to concerning women being deceived was a totally different one, having nothing to do with pastorship. Sorry about the mis-clarity.
By Word Warrior, December 8, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

Jennifer,

Re: VF:

The original comments referred to your misinformation about Doug:

“I don’t approve of the VF’s attempt to deny the clear evidence of evolvement within a given species or try to declare this as evil.”

The statement is a complete falsehood (and I realize you’ve acknowledged that–thank you). That is the topic at hand and there’s no need to bring up other things with which you disagree about VF. Disagreeing with something they say is one thing–certainly your prerogative. Disagreeing with something completely opposite the truth is what I want to stop in its tracks.

Hope I’m being clear.

The Driscoll comment needs to be answered on that thread
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

Alright. I guess I just meant to confirm that not all concerns about the VF are true, but that wasn’t really relevant, I guess; sorry. Thanks for explaining; I don’t want to get off topic either
By Jennifer, December 8, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

“I just meant to confirm that not all concerns about the VF are true”

Whoops, I meant false. Oh well. Done now