[sword-devel] OT: can you be a Christian evolutionist?

John Gardner sword-devel@crosswire.org
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:13:57 -0800

A Christian loves the truth but can be ignorant.  When he sees the truth he
will embrace it.  So while I believe a person can be converted still
believing in evolution that when confronted with the truth he will embrace
the truth.

One of the very most foundational aspects of Christianity is that we are
created by God.  He owns us.

Besides, evolution is SO unscientific.  They don't have ONE good example of
anything that has evolved (become more complex).

The "survival of the fittest" is NOT evolution.  The former is
"speciallization" and becomes genetically LESS complex and more specialized
while evolution indicates things get more complex and better - which is
violation of physical law."  No matter how often or how long or violently
you shake a bucket of bolts you'll NEVER get a car!

Good discussion!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org
> [mailto:owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org]On Behalf Of Leon Brooks
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 7:49 AM
> To: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> Subject: [sword-devel] OT: can you be a Christian evolutionist?
> On Thursday 20 December 2001 03:49, Barry Drake wrote:
> > at risk of being off topic - are you saying that you can't
> > believe in evolution AND be a Christian?
> That depends on how long it takes you to run concepts through to their
> logical conclusions. In other words, it's a temporary state (but which in
> some people can last a lifetime).
> Jesus is Lord... of what? He claimed that ``before Abraham was, I
> AM'' (John
> 8:58) - so was he telling the truth (pre-existent Lord), telling
> a pork pie
> (mortal Liar) or deluded (mortal Lunatic)?
> So far, this only limits you to progressive creation. However,
> Jesus clearly
> interpreted the Old Testament, and particularly Genesis, from a
> literal base.
> For an example, see Mark 10:6 vs Genesis 1:27. Where God
> expresses a claim
> for authority (e.g. Job ch 38) it is almost always based on His
> creatorship,
> and if not then on His eternity.
> There are only two things in the Bible which are unique, and only
> one of them
> is entirely unique. The first is a claim to creation ex nihilo,
> the second
> the fulfilled prophecy. Other ancient books make creation claims,
> but all of
> them involve supernatural beings modifying pre-existent material.
> If you spout enough prophecy, you will sooner or later score a hit. Many
> religious documents (Mother Shipton, Nostradamus, Q'ran) make
> prophecies and
> score hits. The Bible has lots of prophecy too, but it also has lots of
> direct hits, a vastly disproportionate number of them, thousands.
> This is a
> qualitative rather than an absolute proof of supernaturality, but
> it should
> be enough to tide you over pending the development of faith in
> the ex nihilo
> claim.
> Without these features, the Bible is just another special book, a
> Talmud or
> Q'ran. Religion becomes a smorgasbord rather than a clear and exclusive
> choice.
> I became a Christian as a consequence of the second unique feature, and
> remained one because of the first.
> If any of this causes you a problem, there are an abundance of sites with
> information which in toto makes it clear that a belief in creation is an
> inevitable consequence of studying nature without prejudice. Some
> of the more
> popular include these:
>     http://www.icr.org/
>     http://www.answersingenesis.org/
>     http://www.pathlights.com/
> Here are some good link-farms:
>     http://www.tagnet.org/anotherviewpoint/catsites.htm
>     http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
> http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/

A site which sets out to refute specific pro-evolutionary anti-creationist
documents (and with regular ``showstopper'' success) is:


You can also search for key phrases like ``intelligent design'' which is not
creationism per se but does explode conventional evolutionary concepts quite

This is not completely OT because integrating a creationist (and
necessarilyanti-evolutionist) commentary module into Sword's collection is a
fabulous idea. As is a resolving-apparent-contradictions module.

Cheers; Leon