Should A True Christian Teach Evolution In School?
- Thread starter judd
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Nope because its not in Gods word. It is said that darwin himself denied the false theory on his death bed.
Jimmy Engle
New Member
I agree. To teach evolution goes against what God has told us about Himself and how He created the heavens and the earth.
Gods word is the only truth. Evolution is not found in Gods word. So anyone who teaches it is denying God and spreading lies and deceptions that lead away from the truth.
No.
But they really have no choice if they want to remain employed. In modern day , most scientists (70%) will privately admit they see intelligent design (creator) in everything they study. Yet they go along with the established (false) evolution teachings because they wish to remain employed and receive funding. The best a Christian can do is keep pointing it out as being only a theory .
Take a stand and get fired in Jesus Name? No way !!!
We are all the same. Most professions are like that.
My final answer to your question would be as follows ....... If a Christian chose to be a college lecturer in a system that teaches secular evolution theory ...... why did he choose such a career if it makes him uncomfortable ?
Hope that makes sense.
Best regards
Martin W.
I will disagree with the others that have responded and say, "Yes," if they teach it as a “theory.” Your scenario says this is a Christian College, so I would expect they are also teaching creation. They are also teaching future teachers and we need more Christian teachers in our schools.
My 14 year-old just had to do a debate in school, not knowing which side she would have to take til D-day, she ended up with the evolution side. Really, nothing can be done against the truth, and she just naturally scoffs at the theory because its stupid. Those who hide in their intellect will remain faithful to evolution. Those whose minds readily retain the natural understanding will continue on towards God.
As to the right or wrong of it being taught by a christian, as a luminary in a dark world, the evil would be if he or she believed what they were teaching. It is the false teachings that abound in the christian realm that the Adversary is making use of, not some carnal athiestic lies that don't even claim God's ownership.
I paint trains for a living. There won't be any trains in heaven. There won't be any evolution there either. It's majoring in the minors to me. If God has called you out, and desires your being, nothing will prevent Him from obtaining what He wants, not even yourself.
fivesense
Evolution claims nothing became everything by itself and for no known reason.
Creation claims a Creator made everything and for a reason.
Are you saying they coincide? or have I misunderstood your post.
Thanks
Martin
Evolution does not claim nothing became everything by itself and for no known reason. It claims the inherited traits of a population of organisms change through successive generations. And they do. I don't see why this can't be part of intelligent design.
evanom
New Member
You can teach evolution, just don't lie and teach evolution as a scientific fact! It's a theory and you can explain that theory with no harm done. You can teach who Charles Darwin was and why he came to those conclusions. And then you can teach how GOd created everything according to it's kind. Then pray for your students that GOd reveal the truth to them individually.
Yes i agree with this too.
Teaching evolution as the 'theory' that it is does not make one a party to a false teaching. I think its important for young christians to understand the theory because that will help them to know how to defend creationism.
Its very difficult refuting something that you know little of.
If a Christian has no conscionable objection to evolution then why not? If however, he does, then it might be best to leave it alone, though I wonder why they would be teaching a subject they do not understand (a bit like a Catholic teaching Baptist doctrine because he had a class on it once). I have a background in the biological sciences so as a Christian believer I have no problem with evolution, though I do have a problem with those who use it to advance an atheist agenda, or those who oppose it to advance a young earth agenda. I think the Church has better things to do with its time, like actually preparing for the return of our Lord. By itself evolution has nothing to say about theism because it is data regarding genetic continuity in biological organisms. And why should it? It can, however, oppose certain doctrines (not Biblical in my opinion) in popular Christian theology. This should be no surprise. Those who say evolution teaches that something came from nothing are referring to something quite different and should acquaint themselves with the various theories and the areas of science to which those theories belong. And no Darwin did not recant evolution on his deathbed.
The theory of evolution serves only one purpose.
The purpose is to eliminate a Creator from the creation.
It has been very successful.
Save yourselves thousands of hours of debate by spending one hour in Genesis.
However if someone wishes to spend the next thousand hours in waste I have never found it profitable to try to stop them
Sorry to be so harsh. Choose Genesis or choose the secular world view.
Our personal choices determine our end result. It has always been that way.
The purpose is to eliminate a Creator from the creation.
It has been very successful.
Save yourselves thousands of hours of debate by spending one hour in Genesis.
However if someone wishes to spend the next thousand hours in waste I have never found it profitable to try to stop them
Sorry to be so harsh. Choose Genesis or choose the secular world view.
Our personal choices determine our end result. It has always been that way.
Well, I think sometimes the "Theory of Evolution" needs to be defined. IE: Some people limit it to the idea that things evolve. I don't think anyone will say that some animals (and even humans) adapt over time to their environment. I don't see a point where God said "I created everything one way to stay that way and it will never change." God simply said what he created is good and that doesn't have to be stretched to totally eliminate that something does change a bit through time.
However, I try to always add on this clause: The theory of evolution as an origin of life. IE: The concept that living evolved from non-living somewhere along the way.
I only point that about because I can see a little bit of that confusion creeping into this thread. I would share in Jerry's answer that it should properly be taught as a theory. It's easy to sit here and Monday-morning QB a righteous stance of refutation, but the game changes sometimes when its you. I believe there are Biblically-legal and sound ways to teach it as a theory while leaving the door open for a greater search in the truth that is the Bible.
However, I try to always add on this clause: The theory of evolution as an origin of life. IE: The concept that living evolved from non-living somewhere along the way.
I only point that about because I can see a little bit of that confusion creeping into this thread. I would share in Jerry's answer that it should properly be taught as a theory. It's easy to sit here and Monday-morning QB a righteous stance of refutation, but the game changes sometimes when its you. I believe there are Biblically-legal and sound ways to teach it as a theory while leaving the door open for a greater search in the truth that is the Bible.
The Bible was never intended to be a science text. Modern western points of view differ radically from the ancient Near Eastern point of view. For example the Biblical writers take a clearly geocentric cosmological point of view, whereas western science states that point of view is certainly wrong. The problem is exactly that, the writers of the Bible could have cared less about a scientific vantage point. The seven days of creation are non-literal, intended as days (not periods) but pointing to an idea much greater than creation. It is the same idea behind the seven trumpets and bowls of the book of the Revelation and parallels other creation texts like the Babylonian Enuma Elish and the Egyptian Memphite creation. These texts are actually much older than Genesis and give a good idea of the mindset of the ancient near eastern world. If were we to go back in time and try to set them straight regarding scientific truth we would be hitting a brick wall because it would not be relevant to the way life was centered. They would utterly reject it as useless information. As pointed out in John Waltons book on the seven days of creation it was meant ceremonially (both as literal and nonliteral) to refer to the dedication of the Temple (see Solomon's seven day dedication) which was widely used in dedication ceremonies throughout the ancient Near East to bring a Temple into service. In fact, the pattern of the creation follows closely with the pattern of a Temple, which pattern appears over and over in scripture. This is not a western idea so it has been mostly lost to us, hence we translate Genesis 1 and 2 by what we know, but it is incorrect and in fact detracts from the purpose of the book as a whole separating Genesis from the religious intent of the rest of the text. Just because an idea is popular and makes sense to us doesnt mean it is right. We should be more cautious with what we choose as doctrine to condemn others.
I have no problem with evolution and I have studied the first two chapters of Genesis in various forms for many years now. It can certainly be read literally without any conflict but it depends on the central subject of the text you choose (religious as opposed to scientific). Evolution does not suppose NO God, it only supposes the laws of nature (which God created and has set as unalterable boundaries, unless I am mistaken), it does not remove God from anything, as nothing can (God is creator and He has a plan). But to continue to set Genesis as a science text is to invite refutation and disaster because that is simply not the way it was intended and will invariably lead to wrong conclusions concerning the subject of the text.
I have no problem with evolution and I have studied the first two chapters of Genesis in various forms for many years now. It can certainly be read literally without any conflict but it depends on the central subject of the text you choose (religious as opposed to scientific). Evolution does not suppose NO God, it only supposes the laws of nature (which God created and has set as unalterable boundaries, unless I am mistaken), it does not remove God from anything, as nothing can (God is creator and He has a plan). But to continue to set Genesis as a science text is to invite refutation and disaster because that is simply not the way it was intended and will invariably lead to wrong conclusions concerning the subject of the text.
this is an important point to make because you are totally right. Most creationists think that the theory of evolution as that all LIFE evolved on the planet... .obviously this is contrary to the 'creation' account.
Whereas, evolutionists separate 'origins of life' from 'evolution of life'.... this is what christians need to understand. When they are challenging 'evolution' they are in fact challenging the fact that animals have the genetic ability to change over time. However, we also need to challenge the idea that humans and apes are related because evolutionists sill hold to the idea that we have come from the ape family.
What we need to understand is that 'abiogenesis', the idea that life originated in a primordial soup, is not 'evolution'
and that evolution is the theory that animals change over time and by genetic and environmental factors....which has since been proved a fact. What has not been proved a fact is abiogenesis.
I am greatly confused at this forum. From what I have seen, absolutely no one here believes in evolution as a scientific fact. I must ask why. Do you believe that you cannot be a Christian without taking every word of the Bible as an absolute truth?
This is absurd, some of the Bible has been lost in mistranslation, not to mention the fact that it was not directly written by God or Jesus. As far as creationism, it is also quite possible that God saw that revealing such an encompassing and beautiful theory upon such early civilization would have wreaked havoc. So it is indeed possible to be a "good" Christian while believing in evolution, I should know.
But here is the main point. Will the creationists here please explain how you can refute years of solid scientific evidence for a theory that lacks any logical explanation. And please do not simply say " 'cause the Bible says." I am trying to have an intelligent conversation about an extremely controversial topic.
On another note, it appears that my last topic was never posted. Could the moderator that reviews this please explain why? Thank you.
May God AND logic be with you.
This is absurd, some of the Bible has been lost in mistranslation, not to mention the fact that it was not directly written by God or Jesus. As far as creationism, it is also quite possible that God saw that revealing such an encompassing and beautiful theory upon such early civilization would have wreaked havoc. So it is indeed possible to be a "good" Christian while believing in evolution, I should know.
But here is the main point. Will the creationists here please explain how you can refute years of solid scientific evidence for a theory that lacks any logical explanation. And please do not simply say " 'cause the Bible says." I am trying to have an intelligent conversation about an extremely controversial topic.
On another note, it appears that my last topic was never posted. Could the moderator that reviews this please explain why? Thank you.
May God AND logic be with you.
- Status
Similar threads
