Psychology claims that we "evolved" from primodial soup. Many Christians wonder what is the significance of this. Evolution is that which is against God as it denies the very existence of God. As such, it implies that there is nothing to which we are morally accountable to. Thus, within the evolutionary framework, we can live in our flesh and satisfy with no consequences to fear, that is to continue living in sin without incurring the wages of death. This contradicts what the Bible says about death being the wages of sin (Romans 6:23).
Evolutionism is teaching that will send many to Hell. The Church must fight it and expose it.
Check out:
http://www.creation.com
http://www.questionevolution.blogspot.com.au/
Evolutionism is teaching that will send many to Hell. The Church must fight it and expose it.
Check out:
http://www.creation.com
http://www.questionevolution.blogspot.com.au/
Hi, you have some great blog posts here! What are your views in regards to Creationism through evolution, that is, that God spoke creation in to being through the process of evolution?
ReplyDeleteNote- I do not believe in evolution or old-earth creationism, nor young earth creationism. Perhaps either, none, or both are true, but I don't believe there is sufficient evidence in scripture or science for me to be certain- nor do I believe the bible upholds having any of these views as important to gospel ministry or Christ-like living. I'm just interested in your opinion on the possibility of believing in both creationism and evolution :)
Hi Matt
DeleteEvolution, in the sense of primordial soup-to-you, also called goo-to-you, is what I mean when I use the term evolution. That a higher percentage of black birds may be found in the forest due to the higher ability to survive is not what 'evolution' is meant. Natural selection is extremely deceptive as a concept because uses a naturalistic means to explain something that may be true such the ability of different variations of birds to survive in a particular environment. Evolution, in the Darwinian sense implies that all life forms randomly arise by spontaneous reactions. This violates abiogenesis that life can only arise from previous life. It also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics that a chemical reaction from a lower energy state to a higher one cannot be spontaneous. Evolution implies that such a reaction can occur spontaneously.
Having said that, not all biology is dodgy. Mendelian genetics, for example, has valid evidence because the data of the phenotypic ratios confirms the transmission of alleles from parents to offspring.
I strongly urge you to check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
and creation.com. Creation Ministries does a great job of showing both sides of the debate, and analyses the arguments for evolutionism.
Although it is not a salvation issue, Creation is evidence of God's Sovereignty, forming the basis of the doctrine of sin and the need to get right with God.
An excellent video that explores this is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C9k5QXF5Ow
Hope this answers your question.
Thanks! I'm an avid and frequent reader of creation.com- and I definitely agree with you that purist and original darwinian evolution is false (scientifically and theologically). Another question, if I may ask- do you believe in either old or young earth creationism? If so why? Again, genuinely curious!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your time!
In Christ,
Matt
Creation.com is good to read for understanding why evolution is evil, and its effects on society, law and culture. It is a good mix of apologetics which cannot be neglected, evangelism and an exposition of the true spiritual state of our society. I believe in young earth creationism. Fossils and T-rex blood cells have been dated to be only thousands of years old, not millions or billions years old. http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report and http://creation.com/still-soft-and-stretchy. There is also a fossil of a snake with legs that has been found, I think somewhere in the middle east. I has been dated to be around 6000 years old. One needs to be careful with the time scale that various dating methods use as 'proof' to demonstrate how old something is. Historical science is to determine evidence for something that cannot be observed by repeat experiments eg. forensic investigations and evolutionary biology. Thus, this requires extra scrutiny. The other method of science is experimental science which involves repeating the same experiment under the same conditions to collect results. eg. organ bath practicals and chemical reactions.
Delete