Evolution-A Religion or Not?

It takes a lot of faith to believe it

Published on June 22, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion

Today the local newspaper printed an editorial response by my son David and I thought I'd share it. It was pretty good and many people around town alerted him to the fact it was in there as well as my husband while out and about. It was a response to an earlier article about evolution. Anyhow here it is.

Theory of Evolution

Evolution is fact? The evolution “theory” that is taught in classrooms today is nothing more then that- a theory. There are more holes in evolution then twelve Swiss cheese sandwiches! I would love for Mr. Sares to show me the scientific law that proves life can come from non-life, the very staple of evolution. That, however, is impossible because no such law exists; there are only theories of how this may occur. Look outside. Especially here in the Mountains we should be able to see with our own eyes the complexity of our earth in its beauty with the mountains and the gorgeous sunsets.

Look at yourself. The human body is the most complex thing on earth. This wasn’t an accident. Scientists say that although the chances of evolution are impossible, given enough time this impossibility becomes a possibility. They say that if I randomly picked a card from a deck of 52 cards enough times it’s possible that I could pick the ace of spades 100 times in a row, given enough time. But what are the chances of that ace of spades growing a head, a brain, legs and arms and starting up a conversation with me? That Mr. Sares is the possibility of the “theory” of evolution.

One Creationist, Kent Hovind, stated he would give $10,000 to anyone who could prove evolution scientifically. No one has come forward yet since he made this challenge- in 1990. Mr. Sares, I challenge you to take up this task and prove to all your readers that evolution is true science. In the meantime, why don’t we continue to teach our children that they are here by mistake, with no purpose in life and let’s continue wondering why they lack self-esteem.

David

One has to wonder why, in the absense of physical substance or actual evidence (the missing link) ,is evolution not somewhat faith-based? Perhaps it is because having faith in the theory of a missing link is more acceptable than having faith in an intelligent designer?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrew 11:1

Let's face it.....evolution is indeed a religion."

Comments (Page 10)

136

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 03, 2006

And who are the cannibals?

savages who do not know God.

Get the movie "End of the Spear." Good movie.

137

bakerstreet

on Jul 03, 2006

"I notice you are giving me symbolic language in poetic books to try and make your points when in fact they are not meant to be taken as such. Remember those middle books are poetic books and again you have to interpret scripture with scripture. If something seems sort of cloudy you don't run with it, you find another that's a bit more clearer and put together to bring into focus. "

And it is for creationists, of course, to decide which scriptures are poetic and which are intended to be taken literally. That way, when somone differs with you, you can tell them that they can't doubt the inerrant word of God. Then when that happens to be proven to be not so accurate, then you can say that it was really metaphorical.

In the end it is a sham, with all due respect. Creationists have decided that while they interpret many of the passages in the Old Testament to be metaphorical, no one had better do that with the creation story. Why? Based upon what do you decide that?

Over and over we are told that we can't take parables literally. When I point out that for hundreds of years a psalm was proof that the sun orbited the earth, you brush it off as silly that anyone would ever think that was the literal truth. They did, though, until they were proved wrong, and now it was never MEANT to be literal, conveniently.

...and yet, you can't FATHOM the idea of taking the creation story metaphorically. You want that to be the accepted history of the creation of the earth. By declaring it the literal, inerrant word of God, anyone who differs with your perspective on creation is differing not with you, but with God.

138

bakerstreet

on Jul 03, 2006

"I've found him totally trustworthy in the process. In this case his sermon had nothing to do with Muslims, Islam, or the Koran but just a passing note so I'm not going to throw this guy to the lions because he mispoke. This is where a little grace comes in. "

Dunno, last I heard bearing false witness against your fellow man wasn't a trustworthy practice. I can see it in passing conversation, but when you are in the pulpit teaching, leading people with what is supposed to be the inspired word of God, one would assume you'd cross your Ts and dot your Is.

He declared a religion to be foolish for a belief they don't espouse. He most certainly has been banging away at Islam. He's said that "Allah" is another name for Satan. He's written a lot about Islam since 9/11. Good for him, but you'd think someone who undertakes such an enterprise would find out for sure. Declaring people to be satan worshippers who believe elephants hold up their world? Hmmm...

I'll say again, if someone can point out where that is in the Koran, I'll sincerely apologize, but I don't think it is. If it isn't, I don't see him as trustworthy at all.

139

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 03, 2006

it's kind of a twisted way of looking at it. A creationist is a literalist. But we don't decide this. By using the whole bible you understand it and along with Science it helps us in that process as well. Science and biblical instruction go hand in hand. It's man's interpretation that screws everything all up. Science has not disproven scripture. What you cite about Galilao is man's interpretation of a poetic verse...yes. You've beaten that to death. Man is not infallible. Man's interpretation is not infallible either. With each generation God sheds more light. He allows us to discover more about him. But we don't want to be ever learning and never coming to the truth either.

Creationists have decided that while they interpret many of the passages in the Old Testament to be metaphorical, no one had better do that with the creation story. Why? Based upon what do you decide that?

No, because when you doubt that you also doubt Christ. He helped us out here. He said in John 5:46

"If you believed Moses you would believe me for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote how are you going to believe what I say?"

Of course if Jesus can make mistakes in testable areas why should He be trusted in untestable areas (John 3:12)? No wonder that doubt of the first book of Moses often leads doubt of Christ's other words. Christ endorsed the Genesis records of creation (Matt 19:3-6) and Noah's flood and the ark (Luke 17:26-27). Jesus also cited Abraham in Luke 16:31 (also mentioned in Genesis). Denominations that doubt Moses by teaching theistic evolution often have leaders who doubt the resurrection too.

So again it's not me or any other creationist making this up. I for one have no agenda nor do I endorse any religion. I've been in a bunch and I see the harm they do. It's not man, I'm following but the God of the bible. I'm a biblical Christian who just so happens to believe it to be absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt true.

]

140

bakerstreet

on Jul 03, 2006

"What you cite about Galilao is man's interpretation of a poetic verse...yes. You've beaten that to death. Man is not infallible. Man's interpretation is not infallible either. With each generation God sheds more light. He allows us to discover more about him. But we don't want to be ever learning and never coming to the truth either."

I've beaten it over and over because you've ignored the reality of it over and over. A passage that was accepted as literal, scientific fact became metaphorical once science proved it wrong. It's pretty obvious to me then that the decision what is literal is going to be based on what makes a good argument for you.

That would be fine if the decision didn't put words in God's mouth. When you declare something literally true, you are saying that God said it, and God meant it just the way YOU say. Seven days are seven days, and to doubt that is to doubt God.

In light of the Galileo/Psalms issue that you don't like to talk about, that perspective seems really, really dubious. Men at that time said that if the Bible says the earth doesn't move, then the earth doesn't move. When you can no longer deny that the earth moves, the scripture becomes metaphorical. Convenient, huh?

"If you believed Moses you would believe me for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote how are you going to believe what I say?"

I'm sorry if this is insulting but do you have any idea how completely irrational it looks when you try to prove that the Bible is inerrant by pointing to what Jesus said... IN THE BIBLE? Jesus didn't write an autobiography, so what He is cited as saying is coming right from the same mortal men who did the other stuff that is open to scrutiny and interpretation.

"It's not man, I'm following but the God of the bible. I'm a biblical Christian who just so happens to believe it to be absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt true. "

You don't believe that the Bible is 100% LITERALLY true, since you believe that parts are often parables or poetic license. So, you aren't relying 100% on the Bible, but at least partially on your own mind to tell you which is which. In that case what you are putting forward when you argue creationism isn't the literal, inerrant word of God, but your interpretation of it.

So, I can't see how you can say that denying the creation story of Genesis as literal has anything to do with denying God or God's word. I'm just coming to a different conclusion than you, with no less proof than you have. Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand?

God's word isn't at issue here, we both read the same words. What is at issue is YOUR decision to interpret the first chapters of Genesis as literal, historical, scientific fact. You don't portray that as your decision, though, you portray it as God's word and anyone who differs is differing with God, not you.

141

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 03, 2006

In light of the Galileo/Psalms issue that you don't like to talk about, that perspective seems really, really dubious. Men at that time said that if the Bible says the earth doesn't move, then the earth doesn't move. When you can no longer deny that the earth moves, the scripture becomes metaphorical. Convenient, huh?

No what I'm saying is that the scripture always meant what it said. It doesn't change. The Bishops of the day made a huge error. They wouldn't even think of looking into a telescope. This was, I admit, an embarrasing episode for the church. Many bishops refused to even look at the evidence because they had already believed another scientific tradition that wasn't biblical. The fault lies with the interpretation not the words of scripture. Scripture does not teach the earth is the center of the solar system.

Now to say that sometimes science corrects erroneous ideas is one thing but actually to disprove Creation is another. There are very few points of Christian faith that are vulnerable to scientific attack. The usual tension is here where we are treading,.....the universe and the origin of life. If science proves that the world was not created I think that would destroy Christianity.

Christianity is committed to the concept of divine creation that there is an eternal God and before whom we will all be held accountable and by whom we were all created and that the earth is not eternal. If the scientist could prove that the universe were in fact eternal that would be the end of the faith. But I am not in the slightest bit worried over that. Just chalk it up to Faith.

says the earth doesn't move, then the earth doesn't move

Now Baker, I see you as immoveable here in your opinion. So let's just say that we put your name in where "the earth" is mentioned in that Psalm. I could say, Baker will not be moved forever. Am I talking literally as if you are as still as a statue or am I talking symbolically? It's the same here in this scripture.

So, you aren't relying 100% on the Bible, but at least partially on your own mind to tell you which is which. In that case what you are putting forward when you argue creationism isn't the literal, inerrant word of God, but your interpretation of it.

But that's just it Baker, I DON'T want my opinion. I want the truth. I'm a truth seeker. I'm probably the most objective person you ever met if you met me. It doesn't matter what I think. Do I have a bias biblically speaking? Absolutely. But this is because after many years of being on the other side I'm firmly convinced this is the word of God. It makes more sense than anything out there. Honestly.

So, I can't see how you can say that denying the creation story of Genesis as literal has anything to do with denying God or God's word. I'm just coming to a different conclusion than you, with no less proof than you have

Well we've got, In the beginning......God spoke!! You say you believe in God right? Then why wouldn't you take the position that God spoke it, that settles it, I believe it? Is it education? Have you had so much education that you've been swayed by what the secular world is telling you? Wasn't we warned about this by Paul? And he very educated no less. But look what he was doing before God knocked him off his horse. BTW....do you have a horse? JK

Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand?

I see you know enough of the bible to be dangerous.......(a joke Baker ok) but you don't have the understanding of what's behind the words. What Jesus is saying and we see it all over is that sin is so serious that indeed it would be better to enter heaven maimed than not at all. So if our hand or eye (lust) is causing us to sin.....cut it off. See it all goes together and that's why he said "Where your treasure is there your heart is also." I wanted to know what he meant by all these sayings and I went out and searched myself. I couldn't trust these priests and pastors for the most part as they knew less than I did half the time. So I put in alot of time and effort to read and read and read.

I don't go deep into alot of subjects. I know where my limits are. But when it comes to religions/scriptures and spiritual matters I feel confident that I can help others with what I've picked up along the way. But if I want to know how to get to Texas I go to someone who has been there and knows the way or get a map that someone ahead of time put there for me. If I need help for a medical problem I see a Doctor.

What is at issue is YOUR decision to interpret the first chapters of Genesis as literal, historical, scientific fact.

Show me where I've said it was scientific fact. I believe it's literal because Jesus gave it credibility and I believe what he says. Otherwise I'd have to say he was leading me astray. If I can't believe what he said when he said these things what can I believe? Do I believe we are to love one another? Do I believe that he is the only way? Do I believe that He loves us? Do I believe that he is coming back for me? Do I believe he's preparing a place for me? How can I or you decide what to believe and what not to believe he said? Do we just simply pick and choose like at a cafeteria? That's what I believe most are doing today. Taking what they believe either makes them feel good or what lines up with their opinion.

Either you believe in the whole counsel of God or you don't. I just so happen to believe in the whole thing and when scripture said....."In the beginning....,,.God said." He said it, that settles it and it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

142

Ionolast

on Jul 03, 2006

Do we just simply pick and choose like at a cafeteria? That's what I believe most are doing today. Taking what they believe either makes them feel good or what lines up with their opinion.

Do you ever boast thyself of tomorrow? I bet you do.

143

bakerstreet

on Jul 04, 2006

"I see you know enough of the bible to be dangerous.......(a joke Baker ok) but you don't have the understanding of what's behind the words."

There ya go, in a nutshell. Years in church, years as a Sunday school teacher, and years in a religious school taking religion courses, but I don't have the "understanding" to know what Jesus was saying during the sermon on the mount. You see your problem? People come to a different conclusion than you and they lack understanding. See, it is your opinions that you hold to be inerrant.

Oh, I know what He was saying, and so do you, but what you DON'T acknowledge is how you came to that conclusion. Sure it says "God said" in Genesis, and it also says that "Jesus said" when he speaks words that are metaphorical, as you admit in reference to the plucking out of eyes and lopping off of hands. The difference is you admit one can be figurative, and refuse to accept any suggestion that the other could be.

You aren't talking to an Atheist, or someone who hasn't had any religious experience. I have been in my life sitting exactly where you are, saying the exact same things to people exactly like me. In the end, I found that they were right. I found that I was an arrogant person who wasn't espousing the literal word of the Bible, I was promoting the inerrancy of my beliefs.

So, if you want to say that the Bible is inerrant, fine, but your interpretation of what the Bible says will never, ever be inerrant. It is a human interpretation; not God's word, but yours. So you can't say that differing with your estimation of creation is differing with God. God has not spoken here, you have, and the scripture you cite was written by man, and interpreted by man.

I differ with what you believe God is saying, you just believe that since God appears to be saying what you believe, it makes your beliefs as inerrant as God. That's exactly what those Catholics believed who held that the sun revolved around the earth and persecuted people for differing with them. In the end, it is just an effort to make you interpretation appear to be coming out of God's mouth.

144

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 04, 2006

Years in church, years as a Sunday school teacher, and years in a religious school taking religion courses, but I don't have the "understanding" to know what Jesus was saying during the sermon on the mount

I've known many people (including my MIL) who taught religious education in various denominations that couldn't find the book of Psalms. So this means nothing to me. I've seen Sunday school teachers (and Pastors for that matter) run off with the church piano player. Again, they really have no understanding only head knowledge. Big deal. Those are not the ones I would follow. The ones I follow are the ones I see following Christ. I have such people in my life today and it helps me tremendously. Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. We need to do that as well. Find a strong spiritual influence, one that SHOWS not by outward strutting but a quite example of Christ like behavior. That was the very purpose of the church...one to glorify God and the other to edify and encourage the body.

I said you don't understand the wording because you told me it was literal. Jesus wants us to cut out our eyes if we look at someone of the opposite sex, or our hand if we use it inappropriately.

but what you DON'T acknowledge is how you came to that conclusion

But I have repeatedly, I come to that conclusion by other scripture and putting it all together.

You aren't talking to an Atheist, or someone who hasn't had any religious experience.

I know that and I think God is doing a work in you even now. He's not done with you yet tho. So don't get too complacent.

but your interpretation of what the Bible says will never, ever be inerrant

I've been saying that all along Baker. I've never said I was inerrant. Never. Have you ever heard the principle of .....one interpretation, many applications?

I differ with what you believe God is saying, you just believe that since God appears to be saying what you believe,

That's ok...........and no I've had to readjust my thinking to get in line with God's word. So that's not true.

That's exactly what those Catholics believed

comparing little ol' me with a big powerful institution is not even close. God always went with the little guy and the ordinary not the mighty and powerful. If you get too big for your britches God can't use you. He needs someone that is available and ready to listen.

145

Texas Wahine

on Jul 04, 2006

KFC, you are one of the most unappealing ambassadors for religion that I've ever encountered.

146

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 04, 2006

KFC, you are one of the most unappealing ambassadors for religion that I've ever encountered.

why is that?

147

bakerstreet

on Jul 04, 2006

" said you don't understand the wording because you told me it was literal. Jesus wants us to cut out our eyes if we look at someone of the opposite sex, or our hand if we use it inappropriately. "

I DEFY you to show me where I said that parable was literal. What I said was:

"So, I can't see how you can say that denying the creation story of Genesis as literal has anything to do with denying God or God's word. I'm just coming to a different conclusion than you, with no less proof than you have. Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand? "

I never said He wanted you yank out your eyeball, but at some point people decided that he didn't REALLY mean for them to do that. It wasn't because he told them not to read it that way, they DECIDED to read it that way. When people DECIDE to read parts differently, and you differ with their decision, they are denying the truth of God's word.

Don't you see how that is a tad hypocritical? There's no equation for deciding what is literal and what is figurative. There are no rules that I have ever seen to use to make that decision. The existence of untold numbers of Christian, Protestant denominations should tell you that everyone interprets things differently.

I just want to know why it is okay to do that in some spots, and not okay to do it in others. If you look at attitudes over the centuries, you'll see that your personal flavor of Christianity is totally due to someone deciding that they'd interpret particular scriptures differently than the rest of the crowd. At one time they were deemed to be rejecting God's word.

So, don't you feel just slightly odd when make the same declarations that led to dire mistakes and divisions in the past? The arguments you are making here are not so different than the ones that they beat Galileo about the head and shoulders with. That doesn't feel the least bit uncertain to you? Well, it probably didn't to them, either.

Here's the bottom line.

If evolution IS false, it doesn't prove that creationism is true. It's quite possible that both are wrong. So disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.
The demands for proof you put on the theory of evolution bite back every time you use them.

You can't answer the "Were you there" question any more than proponents of evolution. A book written and translated by people you can't vouch for isn't any more proof than books by people I can't vouch for. The difference is that belief in the veracity of science can at least be tested. Sure, both are belief, both require faith, but science isn't any more religion than history or any other field.

You demand fossils and can't provide any yourself. You point to the lack of transitional fossils, and at the same time ignore the fact that there are no human fossils alongside trilobytes and ancient cities with dinosaur bones in the fire from dinner. There are bones of creatures we expect to be there, and there are fossils of creatures we expect at the levels we expect them. Science is about using what you know to make predictions. Your belief predicts humans living right alongside every species that ever lived, and we just don't see that in the fossil record. Why?

By building these layers of claims that are eventually defeated, like the long list of things even Mr. Ham doesn't agree with now, you build yourself a body of evidence against the reliablility of your science. Every time you make new obstacles for people to accept your other arguments. Do you think that the defeat of evolution is worth creating MORE disbelief in God? Do you think that the witness such misreprentations bears will bring more people to God, or create more reasons for them to dismiss Christianity?

Don't take offense at the things I am saying, but look at it as objectively as you can. I am usually out there butting heads with bigoted secularists and hateful ANTI-creationists. Every false claim and misrepresentation you and folks like you propose is one that I get thrown in my face. Can you see how it would be annoying for me to try to plead your case when folks are still out there acting purposely ignorant and telling lies?

Do I sound like a flat earther to you? I've been called that. I'm lumped right in with people that they deem are too stupid to believe in gravity, while at the same time you're telling me I lack understanding. You have no idea how annoying it is to try and put forth the fact that science doesn't have anything to fear from creationists when they are right there handing bigots the proof while I am saying it.

148

MasonM

on Jul 05, 2006

If evolution IS false, it doesn't prove that creationism is true. It's quite possible that both are wrong. So disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.

I agree with this one 100% and will add that proving macroevolution to be true doesn't disprove creation either. The fact is they aren't really mutually exclusive.

You demand fossils and can't provide any yourself. You point to the lack of transitional fossils, and at the same time ignore the fact that there are no human fossils alongside trilobytes and ancient cities with dinosaur bones in the fire from dinner. There are bones of creatures we expect to be there, and there are fossils of creatures we expect at the levels we expect them. Science is about using what you know to make predictions. Your belief predicts humans living right alongside every species that ever lived, and we just don't see that in the fossil record. Why?

Some excellent points here. Personally, I don't believe dinosaurs and people lived on the planet at the same time (but then I don't see Genesis as literal either), but I do sometimes wonder about certain things like the dragon myths common to almost all peoples. Maybe some species did survive for a while into the time of Man?

Ah well, we may never in our lifetimes learn the truth of whether Creation, Evolution, some mixture of the two, or something else entirely is responsible for life on our little planet, but it's an interesting debate just the same.

149

bakerstreet

on Jul 05, 2006

" agree with this one 100% and will add that proving macroevolution to be true doesn't disprove creation either. The fact is they aren't really mutually exclusive."

I agree in terms of philosophy, but not science. If everything supposed was true until it was proven untrue then bigfoot, aliens, etc., would be taught in science class. Anyone who scoffed would be met with "Oh yeah, well prove bigfoot DOESN'T exist..."

"Some excellent points here. Personally, I don't believe dinosaurs and people lived on the planet at the same time (but then I don't see Genesis as literal either), but I do sometimes wonder about certain things like the dragon myths common to almost all peoples. Maybe some species did survive for a while into the time of Man? "

Oh, you'll not catch me subscribing 100% to the current accepted theories either, nor does science agree 100%. I think it is sad that people who differ with totally random evolution are branded creationists. The sad part is that creationists have helped that along by hijacking "Intelligent Design" for themselves. It makes it easier for stolid Darwinists to dismiss people who differ with them because everyone now seems to agree that "Intelligence" can only be God.

150

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 06, 2006

I DEFY you to show me where I said that parable was literal. What I said was:

Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand? "

This is what I thought you were saying....that it was literal and that I was denying it to be so.

When people DECIDE to read parts differently, and you differ with their decision, they are denying the truth of God's word.Don't you see how that is a tad hypocritical? There's no equation for deciding what is literal and what is figurative. There are no rules that I have ever seen to use to make that decision. The existence of untold numbers of Christian, Protestant denominations should tell you that everyone interprets things differently.

there is one interpretation but many applications. As far as all the different groups? I've been in many of them over the years. I tend to be evangelical and reformed. So I would be ok in any denomination that the center of it is the whole counsel of God. Doesn't matter if they are Independent, Baptist, Congo, Calvery, Nazerene, or Presbyterian, etc. Most of what used to be good churches have lost their way. They are more about feeling good and tickling ears than they are about truth telling. Most of the ones I've left are because they are following a particular doctrine and throwing out anything that will contadict their line of thought.

Don't take offense at the things I am saying, but look at it as objectively as you can

and I would say the same to you because that's really where it's at. We need to put away our biases and opinions and be open to the truth. Reason together. Agree absoultuely here. I'm with ya on this.

Can you see how it would be annoying for me to try to plead your case when folks are still out there acting purposely ignorant and telling lies?

Yes, absoultuely. I think many Christians are ill informed. Most have no idea but are just parroting what their uncle Billy told them. But also there are evolutionists out there doing the same thing. Works both ways.

while at the same time you're telling me I lack understanding

no, I didn't mean that generally just on that particular verse we were talking about...but now you are telling me that you're not about to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand so I can feel good about that. I really didn't want you to take that literally...whew!!!

Since I'm out of time for now, I would like to respond later to the claim of dinos living or not living with humans bit here.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!