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 4)

cactoblasta

on Jun 25, 2006

No such thing has ever been observed and there's no real evidence that it has ever happened. It's simply taking an observed natural adaptation to changing conditions and carrying it out to an absurd and unsupported extreme.

I don't think it's that absurd. The current classification system is somewhat arbitrary for all its complexity. Genetic variation between species and the capacity of humans to create entirely new varieties of things through combining strains is fairly well established; it doesn't seem impossible to me that the species barrier can be broken with the right breeding program.

The only problem is our current level of technology is incapable of researching it. All we have to go off is reasoned argument and educated guesses, of which evolution is currently the most persuasive, particularly considering archaeological records.

I can understand your point that teachers aren't teaching students about the meaning of words like 'theory' and 'hypothesis', but that should be dealt with well before theories like evolution or even the term biology itself are covered, so the key to fixing your deficient education systems probably lies in fixing those first few lesson plans.

Moderateman

on Jun 25, 2006

God only knows how long it would take though.

exactly.

not buying it

on Jun 25, 2006

I don't think it's that absurd.

What you or I think doesn't matter to science. The only thing that matters is what can be observed and proven.

Dr Guy

on Jun 25, 2006

huh? Am I missing a link? (pun intended)

Good one regardless.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 25, 2006

The only problem is our current level of technology is incapable of researching it. All we have to go off is reasoned argument and educated guesses, of which evolution is currently the most persuasive, particularly considering archaeological records.

Really? Such as? I'm an info junkie. Educate me here.

I can give you a long list of archaelogical evidence over the years in support of the scriptures. But I didn't realize there was that much hard evidence out there supporting evolution. They keep changing and it's hard to keep up with the latest.

I'm still waiting for my tomatoes to turn into watermelons.

Good one regardless.

yes, well it's good to keep a sense of humor. I know how heated some can get over this issue. So far tho, I think we've had very good conversation here.

bakerstreet

on Jun 25, 2006

"I can give you a long list of archaelogical evidence over the years in support of the scriptures."

Not really, not in terms of refuting evolution. You really can't present archeological evidence as to what God did, and there's ample archeological evidence that the world is a lot older than the Bible claims it is when it is taken literally.

"I'm still waiting for my tomatoes to turn into watermelons."

Why not address the truth of evolutionary theory instead of making a flawed representation of it to deride? You do yourself a disservice when you sink to that.

You know the process of natural selection enough to know that a tomato can't be bred to be a watermelon. Any small genetic change in a tomato now isn't going to turn it into a watermelon. Whatever small genetic change that began the process of natural selection that led to a tomato being what it is didn't instantly make it a tomato, either.

It's hard to respect such a facetious perspective. It's like saying when in doubt, say "My daddy ain't no dern munky". You can't have a decent discussion of it when people are willing to do that.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 25, 2006

it's a joke Baker.....pleeese. Where's your sense of humor?

If the evolutionists are going to insist on macro evolution and continue to tell our kids that theory is the same as truth then let them answer my comment.

Why not address the truth of evolutionary theory instead of making a flawed representation of it to deride?

geeeze I thought I had been doing that. I was just taking a break.

Not really, not in terms of refuting evolution.

Actually that's not what I was getting at when I asked for specifics. What was said by Cactoblasta was that the most reliable and persusive argument using archeology was evolution. I am saying there is tons of archeology uncovered in regards to what we read in scripture. So if the archeology as been very successful proving the scriptures are authentic, I have no reason to not believe what it says in regards to the creation account thus far. The scriptures don't change but the theory of evolution is ever changing.

So just show me where archeology has refuted what the scriptures have written and I'll recant. In fact the more we dig up the more the scriptures look like what they are claiming to be. From what I've read over the years, archelogy, science, and history have yet to disprove scripture. And what I'm seeing now (regarding prophecy) only makes me more confident.

another thought but only good if you believe in the words of Christ. He said this:

"For had you believed Moses you would have believed me, for he wrote of Me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?" John 5:46-47

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

I believe when Christ quoted from those books he was given his consent to them and is one of the reasons they are included in the cannon in the first place.

Both references show the importance placed on the writings of Moses beginning with Genesis. In Acts 28 we read Paul in Rome preached to them Jesus from Moses and the prophets. Out of Moses' five books of the bible Genesis is the most noticed and referred to more often than any other book in the bible even. But in theological and Bible colleges in Christian and non Christian circles, which book of the Bible is the most attacked? Yes, Genesis. The very writings that are quoted from more than any other are the ones most attacked disbelieved or ignored.

Why? Too long for me to go into here, but it involves foundations. If you destroy the foundations of anything the structure will collapse. This foundation I believe is sure but it doesn't mean that it's not being hacked at.

Every single biblical doctrine of theology directly or indirectly ultimately has its basis in the book of Genesis. Everything about mankind and the world we find in the first 11 chapters and from there on it is all just repeated. In the first 11 chapters we have creation,God,the trinity, angels, satan, man, woman, marriage, family, sin, death, redemption, etc.

bakerstreet

on Jun 25, 2006

"So if the archeology as been very successful proving the scriptures are authentic, I have no reason to not believe what it says in regards to the creation account thus far. The scriptures don't change but the theory of evolution is ever changing. "

I don't really have to. Does the fact that Tokya is represented accurately in Godzilla movies prove that Godzilla is real? In order to follow your statement you have to believe that the bible is inerrant. That isn't really even claimed by the bible itself.

If you look through the library you'll find tons of books that are based around historical occurances, filled with historically correct facts, but that doesn't mean they are inerrant. I'm no atheist and am a big fan of the bible, don't get me wrong. I'm not iconoclast or anything, but I kind of need a reason to think something was intended to be inerrant before I believe it.

on Jun 26, 2006

http://xx.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=100480

Some people got this wrong, so I'm posting a link to my article about usage of word "Theory."

I see many arguments about macro-evolution being not wintessed... so here's my argument.

Suppose you're part of a species that live only one hour. Somehow your species spawn new generation per 30 minutes. Now, you're 24th generation that has been watching this thing that's being built by humans. Would you see much change within a single hour in your life? Not a lot. Maybe you will be witness to a single new side panel being installed, but that's just micro change. You could easily determine that there's only micro changes done to world, and no macro-changes ever. After all, you lived your entire life and barely nothing changes.

Well, micro-evolution can be as quick as a single season, up to few hundred years.

Macro-evolution, however, takes thousands of years. That's MANY human generations! No wonder we never saw any major changes. It's simply too slow for us to see it!

Other example, it's reality this time. Did you know that earth is changing it's land masses constantly? I mean that. It never stopped at all! Yet it looks same to us century after century. It's simply too slow for us to even see it! It's same for evolution. It's like landmasses, only moving about inch per year. Some places is even slower.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 26, 2006

[

In order to follow your statement you have to believe that the bible is inerrant.

of course and you know that I do. I feel I have no choice but to after studying this for many years.

That isn't really even claimed by the bible itself.

How sure are you? Who told you this? How familiar are you with the bible? Keep in mind the bible (a collection of books) is really 66 books, not one.

but I kind of need a reason to think something was intended to be inerrant before I believe it.

well do you believe in Jesus? Would he be reason enough? He was constantly giving credence to the OT writers and scriptures by quoting from them. Read Luke 4:17-21 for instance. Notice what he quoted, notice he stopped mid sentence and sat down. Why? Go back and compare to the OT book of Isa 61:1-2a. He left out 2b on purpose. Notice the wording "He shut the book and sat down." A statemement was being made here. One had to do with his first coming the other his second coming. He knew but the hearers had no idea.

Even when in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, what did he use in his defense as well as offensive weapon? Scriptures. And every single scripture he used against the devil came from the book of Deuteronomy written by Moses. Hebrews 4:12 says the word of God is quick and powerful sharper than a two edged sword. Christ used the sword of God, like I'm doing now. This is where I'd use it to divide truth from error like in your Toyoko/Gozilla illustration.

Jesus also said in John 17:17.."Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth."

Peter said: "Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21. Well is the HS fallible or infallible?

Either you accept it as the infallible word of God or you don't. But to stand on the fence with one leg on either side is considered lukewarm, and I don't think that's a safe place to be.

There's a ton of stuff here on this Baker but I'd be up all night. This is just a sampling, but I'm sure you've heard much of this before. Only the HS can convict you of this but I do believe the word of God as read has that power.

bakerstreet

on Jun 26, 2006

"How sure are you? Who told you this? How familiar are you with the bible? Keep in mind the bible (a collection of books) is really 66 books, not one. "

Ten years of regular service, 4 years as a sunday school teacher. 2 years (6 class hours per year) of religion courses at a private Methodist school, read it cover to cover twice, and bits and peices God knows how many times, and I have two copies (along with a koran) on my desk.

I appreciate the quotes you cite, I really do. What you and others refuse to accept is that when the people speaking in the book were speaking, the book hadn't been written yet. You can't attest to the perfection of a book that hasn't been written yet.

Granted, I'm not the venerable bede, but no one has convinced me of anywhere in the bible that plainly states that it is inerrant. And if it did, you'd have to establish that the people who wrote the individual scritpure was referring to our old workhorse KJV.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your belief, but you are referring to a book translated into a language that didn't exist when those words you cite were spoken. Your faith is not in those words, but all the small steps in between that converted them from the actual event that you hold in your hands. You rely upon the fact that everyone in between the spoken word and your copy got it right.

Again, I'm not trying to dissuade you, but I believe none are perfect, save God. I understand that "The Word" is now considered to be the fourth part of the trinity by literalists, but that is just a bandaid on the problem. It is a book, and if it is perfect, then it is God. I don't worship books, or anything of the kind.

SanChonino

on Jun 27, 2006

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your belief, but you are referring to a book translated into a language that didn't exist when those words you cite were spoken. Your faith is not in those words, but all the small steps in between that converted them from the actual event that you hold in your hands. You rely upon the fact that everyone in between the spoken word and your copy got it right.

Again, I'm not trying to dissuade you, but I believe none are perfect, save God. I understand that "The Word" is now considered to be the fourth part of the trinity by literalists, but that is just a bandaid on the problem. It is a book, and if it is perfect, then it is God. I don't worship books, or anything of the kind.

I'm going to have to go with Baker on this one. The books of the Bible are copies of copies of copies of oral traditions. We don't have anything we can even pretend is the original. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the stories that the bible provides us, but I don't take it as the inerrant truth. Of course there are mistakes - man was involved in the process, there's always going to be mistakes. And (returning to the original topic) that's why I'm comfortable in my belief that the Lord may have used evolution to create us.

Like I said, until a prophet of God tells me different, I'm going to believe it.

SanChonino

on Jun 27, 2006

Either you accept it as the infallible word of God or you don't. But to stand on the fence with one leg on either side is considered lukewarm, and I don't think that's a safe place to be.

I really don't think Baker's sitting on the fence in this one, either. He seems to believe in the Bible rather heartily. He just might see that it can't be infallible. Nothing touched by man can be, because we are fallible, and consequently, everything we do is imperfect, too. Of course God wanted us to have these teachings, but I still don't think that it's fence sitting to not believe it an infallible book. (And remember, I was a missionary

)

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 27, 2006

What you and others refuse to accept is that when the people speaking in the book were speaking, the book hadn't been written yet

you mean compiled? The book is a collection from the authors. It wasn't heresay. Paul's letters for instance were directly sent to the churches. Copies were made meticulously and spread around and perserved just like the OT was preserved beautifully by the Jews. God was truly watching this process and protecting it. Greek was the main language of the day. The Greek Septuagint was around in Jesus' day. That's what they were reading.

This was never an issue in the early church. God's word was never questioned as being infallible or not. I read recently that Isaac Newton referring to a verse in Daniel Chap 9 said that

"this verse alone was enough to stake the truth of scriptures on this prophetic scripture alone."

I just can't remember what verse he was referring to, but I think it must have been 9:26 because that's remarkable being written 500 years before Christ which would point to the infalliblity of it. Also every single OT promise concerning Christ came true. That's 100% accuracy and the test of a true prophet according to Deut 18. The ones concerning his second coming are just as reliable I believe. Why not? The first time came around as predicted so why not think the next will. Sort of like opening up that second can of corn.

Like I said, until a prophet of God tells me different, I'm going to believe it.

he did, you're just not buying it.....Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. If you're going to err why stand on that side? Doesn't the saying go......if you're going to err.....err on the side of caution?

The Word" is now considered to be the fourth part of the trinity by literalists,

no, I just don't separate the two because Jesus even said in John 14 that the comfortor (HS) would bring all things to their minds and they would be able to remember and write it down just like Peter said above. It all meshes together and fits like a glove so it does make sense. There's not one contradiction in it.

And if it did, you'd have to establish that the people who wrote the individual scritpure was referring to our old workhorse KJV.

no, I'm not a KJV only type of person (even tho I do use it). I go back to the orignial Hebrew and Greek. I think actually the NASB is the purest, nearest to these original languages but I don't regularly use it only because I use my rag tag KJV for so long I'm comfy with it. I actually use the NIV, ESV, NASB and the KJV and compare sometimes for word usuage. If I was going to reccommend a bible I'd tell someone to get the NASB translation. New American Standard Bible.

Hey you two.......check out this link as far as other works of antiquity are concerned and tell me what other works mentioned are so questioned.

Link

bakerstreet

on Jun 27, 2006

But people can't attest to the perfection of something they have never read, KFC. Paul couldn't deem a work perfect before it was written, nor can he say that the copies of his letters are perfect after he is dead. He most certainly wasn't able to read and approve a translation that came over 1000 years later.

As for the link, Dan Brown is chocked full of historically accurate details. Do you consider his work to be accurate? A fact that proves to be true on one page does not prove the validity of other pages, only that fact. Like I say, just because Tokyo is accurate in Godzilla movies doesn't mean Godzilla is real.

You state the differences in translations yourself. Are they all inerrant? Do you consider the line "Thou Shalt Do No Murder" and the line "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to be equally perfect? That relies a LOT on the frame of mind and the background of the reader, wouldn't you say?

What you seem to me to be saying is that it really isn't the book, it is the holy spirit that teaches you the truth when you read it, therefore even if the words are slightly different, the message is still perfect. That, though, isn't the Bible that is perfect then, it is the spirit that gives you the message.

That, believe it or not, makes more sense to me than stating the perfection of a work like the Bible.

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!