[CS-FSLUG] [OT] Re: Interesting picture, creation vs. evolution

Chris Brault gginorio at sbcglobal.net
Mon Dec 5 16:45:26 CST 2005


> > Guys - it comes down to what you believe!
Evolution is very 
> > simply  put, a religion, packaged as science. 
There can be no
> > mixes and matches.

> I think that is a dangerous statement ("There can
> be no mixes and matches"). Personally, I know a
whole boatload 
> of otherwise perfectly theologically sound
Christians that are 
> very much in the Theistic Evolution/Intelligent
Design camp. To 
> make Evolution exclusively outside the realm of
> creates a needless wall to belief.

I think what he was trying to say was that Evolution
is incompatible with the beliefs of Jesus, the
apsotles and the church fathers. It is also
incompatible with the origin of man's sinful nature
and with the plan of redemption. 

Does believing in Theistic Evolution exclude one from
salvation? No, of course not. I once believed it
myself. We must support the weaker brothers (sisters,
too) and gently lead them into truth (perhaps Answers
In Genesis could help with this topic) without
condemning them.


> Evolution itself is simply a scientific hypothesis
> (or theory, depending on your perspective); when it
becomes a
> religion is when you argue a materialistic worldview
around it 
> free from God or a theistic world view with an
> first cause to evolution.

Once again, I should note that evolution is
incompatible with scripture, the beliefs of Jesus and
the plan of salvation. I should also note that one
must assume alot outside of the word of God, and
indeed, one must assume many things outside of any
empirical evidence, to embrace evolution as fact. Most
of the time it's simply ignorance or bowing to the
interopretations of "science". I can't blame people
for believing despite what the Word of God cleary


> Genesis 1:1-2:2 are poetic in nature. Does that
> mean they aren't literal? No, not at all. But,
clearly some of 
> it is not. For instance, until their was an earth
> there could be no night and day... literally. And,
to God, is 
> there ever night and day? Not unless He only "lives"
in one 
> spot on the globe.

A plain reading of Genesis 1 and 2 in Hebrew clearly
indicates that the days of Genesis 1 are literal days.
There was an evening and a morning and thus a day was
defined. Therefore either the earth was moving or the
light was moving. Evening and morning are descriptions
of darkness and light upon the earth rather than any
particular perspective God had on the events. I could
be in orbit and tell you where day and night are. I
suspect God could as well ... that since he created
them and named them.

> The point isn't so much the rightness or wrongness
> of Creationism, but whether it ought to be a barrier
to faith.

It shouldn't be a barrier to faith. Like other
teachings, though, it should make it's way into their
minds via sound doctrine. The virin birth, the
destruction of Egypt and the miracles of Jesus should
be discovered in a similar fashion.


More information about the Christiansource mailing list