Drew:

I just read your post on your blog, God Doesn’t Deceive: Another Side to the Book of Nature http://www.tatuskofam.com/musings_of_drew/wordpress/?p=14 One thing that just sticks out to me is that you are coming from the premise that the information evolutionists gather from science is accurate, when in fact if one closely examines their claims one will see evolutionists’ conclusions are fraught with circular reasoning resulting in questionable conclusions.

Some of the circular reasonings evolutionists commonly use are that of the fossil record and the earth’s strata to date the earth. We commonly hear that certain fossils are found in certain layers which are such and such years old. Then they turn around and tell you that they know that that strata is that old because those certain fossils were found in them. Logically one should date the strata or fossil itself to determine its age rather than dating it by the “assumed” age of its surroundings. So some say, yes, we have other dating methods such as radiometric dating or carbon dating. That method has shown to also be unreliable for various reasons. Some modern rocks have been dated in the millions-of-year-old range, then we are told that those dating methods are not intended to date “new” rocks accurately. If all the rocks are relatively new, then how can they compare old and new rocks with that method? One very significant aspect that evolutionists assume is that the earth’s conditions are the same now as they were in their supposed 4 billion years age. But the Bible gives us the possibility that the earth’s conditions were not as they are today. I have read the argument that Genesis describes waters above the expanse and below the expanse, or a water canopy above the earth and water underground. In the account of Noah’s flood, it is written that all the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven were opened. If it is true there was a water canopy above the earth, then it could have very likely shielded the earth and its inhabitants of cosmic bombardment. In other words, the bones later found by our modern day archeologists would not start out with the same amount of carbon that a modern day human would exhibit since we are no longer protected by a water canopy above the atmosphere, and thus trying to determine the rate of decay is irrelevant if you don’t know how much carbon was there to start with. If you read the work of Robert Gentry on radio halos, he explains a similar concept of evolutionists assuming conditions were the same now as they were in the past, which skews the result of their dating methods. Gentry contends that from his examination of rocks, the decay rate does not appear to have been constant. In the area of mutations, again, evolutionists draw their conclusions upon assumptions and not concrete evidence. For instance they claim there are beneficial mutations and detrimental mutations. But labelling one mutation “beneficial” and another mutation “detrimental” assumes that there is an original model by which to compare to see if there was in fact a mutation. That is, how do you know something has mutated if you don’t have an original model to compare and see where the deviation occurred? There are many more aspects of the evolution model which raises disputes in relation to accuracy, therefore to “rely” soley on the evolutionists to solve the mysteries of our beingings is irresponsible. Their methods and ability to make accurate conclusions appear weak and a shame that they fight so vehemently against others who share or expose their weaknesses. I feel it becomes an issue of pride more than a search for truth.

Andrea:

I’m glad that Bri addressed the passage of “plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin.” I had meant to address that a long time ago, but never got around to it. I agree with Bri that it is a matter of “if/then,” and that the eye and hands do not cause sin, therefore we aren’t required to pluck them out. A passage that appears to back that up in the Bible is 1 John 1:10:

“He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.”

That seems to be saying that “when we love our brother (I’m thinking this means fellow man), then we don’t sin. I think “love” is an attribute which keeps us on the straight and narrow. When we practice “lack of love,” then we sin. Lack of love seems to be linked to what causes us to sin, not our eyes or hands or any other parts of our bodies. Remember, love is gentle, patient, long-suffering, humble, hopeful, etc.  So that passage regarding plucking one’s eye out if it causes you to sin IS a LITERAL passage.
Okay, toodles for now, and thanks for all the good thoughts and civil exchanges!

Marla

I do not think Genesis is a lie. I think some spiritual truths are too profound to be understood with literal language, and so God uses allegory to tell the truth, the real deep truth. Music and art, too, can convery truths too deep for words. These are God’s truths, deeper truths that go beyond our merely human ability to understand.

And I agree, Patti, that we must read scripture and let God “quicken it to our hearts” to instruct us in everything–including how we should dress. I think that the spirit of the instruction will be evident to us as we pray on scripture, and that we can be instructed differently, according to God’s will for us.

My understanding of scripture, the quickening of my heart, is different from yours in this matter of evolution vs 6-day creation, and also in the matter of who is going to heaven and who is not.

But Christ is bigger than all of us and all our ideas and opinions, is more powerful and good beyond what we can ever imagine. That’s my ultimate faith.

TTFN, enjoy your summers, Andrea

You raise some interesting points which I have already come across in discussions with other people.

What first comes to my mind at this moment is that we are neglecting to address an underlying principle of our world regarding evil, deception, and the devil.

Jesus is the Christians final authority in regards to interpretation of reality, attitudes to live by, and what our behaviors and beliefs should be. Over and again we are told in Scripture that Jesus was the perfect man, without sin, without deception, without malice. He was the perfect spotless lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus routinely spoke of historical persons as real people without qualification. The New Testament writers also reference events and persons in the Hebrew scriptures regarding the literal fulfillment of Jesus as the Messiah. This shows that not only did Jesus want us to believe in Adam and other ancient persons as real non-allegorical persons, but so did the Apostles and other writers of the New Testament.

There is actually no reason for us to take the parables of Jesus as allegories. Also for Him to be required to make up stories for parables would be unnecessary given His great wisdom and resources. Jesus was taught by angels, and even the educated Jews were astonished at His wisdom. Even the Apostles exclaimed, “Thou knowest all things.” He also knew the heart of all men. None of Jesus’ parables about regular earthly events would have to be construed as implausible. Hearers of his stories would have undoubtedly assumed that the stories were accurate accounts of previous events, which would have lent the maximum affect upon those assembled to hear him. There is at least one parable that explains events beyond earthly experience, but in that case real names are given, those of Lazarus and Abraham. Many of the people believed that Jesus was a prophet, speaking words from God.

As far as the passage concerning plucking out one’s eye, that passage as well as others is problematic because it is not actually taken literal enough. It reminds me of a biology professor who was ridiculing the Genesis account of the flood as being obviously inconsistent. He said that in one place we are told that Noah was told to take animals by sevens and in another place by twos. A better reading of Genesis 6 will reveal how inaccurate his assertion was. Jesus said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you.” Of course, this would have gotten His audience sitting up and asking one another, “What did he just say?” Notice though that taken literally He is not saying that a person’s eye causes him to sin. He is saying “IF it causes you to sin,” not “your eye causes you to sin.” Those acquainted intimately with Jesus’ teachings should know that it is the heart that causes sin, not the eye nor the hand. This is consistent with what Jesus said elsewhere, “Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” Therefore, the plucking out of the eye is not an allegory but is part of a logical exercise of literal proportions. Those having problems with this passage are ignoring the meaning of “if” in a logical if/then expression.

This happens often with people reading or quoting scripture, which probably simply reflects in their day to day reasoning skills. I have heard people quote a passage saying, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” By omitting the initial condition of the passage, they are implying such, “If you know the truth, then the truth will set you free,” but that is not what the passage is saying at all. Rather the conditional statement is, “IF you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” In this case the condition was not met by those Jesus was speaking to, therefore the rest of the fulfillment would neither apply to them. Some of those hearing Him were not about to abide in His word, so that even IF they knew the truth, there is no promise that the truth would set them free without abiding in His word.

Now back the the nature of evil, deception, and the devil. We should start with Genesis:

“Then the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’. ”

Jesus said of the devil, “When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” Where in the Hebrew scriptures would the listeners have been familiar with the devil as the father of lies? That would be the above passage from Genesis. How ironic would it be for Jesus to be referring to the devil as the father of lies from Genesis, if the above passage from Genesis were a lie. That would make Jesus the harbinger of falsehood and would give credence to the devil.

Paul warned the Thessalonians about the devil and lies, “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

This is a very telling passage. The devil, whom Jesus believed as a real being, is working to deceive the world, and God allows the world to believe the lie. Whatever this lie is, it seems to become very pervasive in the world. Now Jesus said that the way to destruction is wide and many are those who take it. There is a strong delusion overtaking the world and the scripture calls it “the lie.” Now consider that the full doctrine of evolution is not found in the Bible from reading it plainly, yet evolutionists tell us that evolution is the underlying principle of biology and of the universe. Evolution is also THE primary rationale given to disprove the relevancy of God and the authenticity of the Bible and Jesus as Saviour of anything.

In the spirit of truth, there is no reason why an all-knowing and all-powerful God as described in the Bible would allow the authentication by Jesus and His Apostles of blatant lies about how we came to be in Genesis. If evolution as described by university textbooks is the gospel truth, so to speak, then God is the lier for not telling us about our true origins before the modern “scientists” could get to it.

On the other hand, as a believer in Jesus and the Bible, I know that a strong delusion must overtake the world in defiance against God and His Christ. The Bible even tells me that people will sneak amongst Christians to teach lies in hypocrisies.

Paul the Apostle wrote to Timothy, “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

What possibly could those fables be that cause people to turn from the truth? Are they the fables of Genesis or the fables of evolution? All this is said without even examining evidence from science which seriously casts doubts on evolution as an explanation for origins. We should remember that the scriptures warn us of a strong delusion coming upon the world, this would even require scientists to make up complex stories to prove these delusions. Scientists are sinners too, and fallible, and prone to deceptions of proportions as described. Jesus said that in the latter times the world will be like the times of Noah, when only a family of eight survived. How can a whole world of experts be wrong about the origins of life? The world was wrong in the time of Noah and will be wrong in the latter times, so the scriptures say.

Bri

I’m going to stay mostly out of this conversation because quite frankly, I don’t have the time to go into all the scriptures. However, the bible very clearly is not allegorical nor is it “partly true.” I do not believe God gave us a “grey” book for us to figure out which part is grey and which isn’t. If that were the case, heaven and hell would be a mute point because folks would be picking and choosing which they want to believe.

When you are taking verses from the bible like “plucking out thine own eye” you MUST be careful that you are rightly dividing the word. Timothy says we are to “rightly divide the word.” He also says that “all scripture is given for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. The bible is divided into seven basic time periods. Be very careful taking your doctrine out of the book of Matthew. Matthew is in large part a book of tribulation scriptures (meaning, what’s to come after the rapture). Same thing with the book of Acts. It’s a very transitional book going from giving the gospel strictly to the Jews to going to the gentiles. It’s not that some of it doesn’t apply, but if you rightly divide the word by dispensations as Paul said to then you will discover why some passages are “for” the church age christian and some are for the OT Jew, etc. etc. The plucking out thine eye if it offend thee is a tribulation passage. It doesn’t even apply to you as a christian. SO, in reading your bible, make sure you are properly rightly dividing it and then determining by it’s context if that scripure is for doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction in righteousness.

As an example I’m going to give you something that God has convicted us in our home about. Please note, it is our conviction – not a requirement for others unless God convicts them.

The bible talks about women not looking like men, women being modest, not be a stumbling block for others, etc. etc. I have a list of scriptures but fishing it out right now would take more time then I have). We require our girls (as do I) to wear dresses or skirts. They never wear pants. For anything. The first passage most people go to is deut. and say “yeah but, God also told the jews not to mix certain materials.” That’s NOT where we got our conviction. Our conviction came as instruction in righteousness from the NT books that talk about women being modest, not looking like a man, etc. The next answer is “yeah, but men wore dresses or gowns in the OT times.” Yes, and I’m pretty sure there were ways that men knew a women was next to him. Maybe it was a headcovering, maybe it was colors, etc. But SOMETHING was likely a separation that indicated if someone was a man or a women.

So, you see. The scriptures don’t come out and say we should do “X” regarding our dressing. But there is some clear “instruction in righteousness” for our family. Sometimes God will use OT passages that applied to the Jews to correct us in our attitudes, or to again, to instruct us in righteousness. As one reads the Word and God quickens it to your heart he can use any scripture to convict one of needed correction, instruction in righteousness, doctrine or reproof. It’s not just NT scriptures he uses.

If you are unclear about dispensations I would recommend Clarence Larkins book called the Dispensations of the Times (uh, I think that’s what it’s called. Mine is packed away right now).

I do not think it is compatible to be a christian and not believe in God creating everything in six days. To believe otherwise is to put every other aspect of the bible as suspect. In Psalms God says over and over again that his word is preserved, protected, will stand forever, etc. etc. Not parts of it, not pieces of it. This is one case where I believe it’s all or nothing.

Example: The bible says that baptism is by immersion only following salvation. But there are many churches practicing sprinkling. I was sprinkled as a baby. There is nothing biblical to that and it is contrary to the scriptures. Does that mean that those churches are still right with God? No. They are doing something in total contradiction of the bible. Not to mention damning many of their folks to hell who will trust in that sprinkling to get them to heaven. If one believes the bible is only partly true, is the part about immersion true? The bible is very clear on what baptism is. If one chooses which parts they want to believe then sprinkling would be acceptable – even though is totally anti-bibilical.

It can’t be both ways. Either God is all truth (including his Word) or he’s a liar. He is perfect, so he can’t be grey.

Peace,

patti

” . . . why a fellow believer in Christ would so ignore a literal interpretation in favor of the humanist’s explanation of origins.”

I do not believe that the entire Bible was intended by God to be taken literally. I think we have to consult the “still, small voice” to determine what is literal and what is not. Jesus, for example, exhorts us to pluck out our eye if it offends us. I don’t think he meant that literally. In Deutoronomy we are told to kill our children if they disobey us. Etc. etc.

I think Adam is an allegorical Everyman, and Eve Everywoman, and it is a story about how by disobeying God, by thinking we know more than God after we eat the allegorical fruit of knowledge, we turn away from Him and are cast out of what could be, were it not for this primary sin, a blissful existence in his presence. I do believe in a literal Flood.

I don’t know what I think about the geneaology. I am more interested in how to live as a faithful Christian. But I do know Jesus speaks figuratively a lot–not just in the plucking-eye passage, but throughout the gospels.

Why God wouldn’t have told us of our having come from apes? Well, He didn’t mention DNA, either, or aerodynamics, or how to make a good chocolate cake–yet all these things are good, true things.

You do raise one sticky point though. I noticed it your last post but decided to avoid it. And that is, why death? Why would a good God create death and suffering, a system where the fittest survive? Isn’t that cruel?

I dont’ know the answer to that. I don’t understand it. Somewhere in Proverbs it says, don’t try to understand things you aren’t created to understand. (I’m paraphrasing very freely.) That is one of those things.

I certainly understand your distress at the use of evolution to discount the existence of God. It gets really ugly. I don’t want to convince you Evolution is correct, but I do want to be sure to let you know that there are many, many faithful believers who do not reject evolution.

There’s a book called “God’s Universe”, which I haven’t read, written by a evolutionist who is also a believer, that explores this in depth and is said to be very good. Like I said, I haven’t read it. But I hope to someday.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Andrea

Thank you for your reply. I am glad you agree on the importance of challenging a lie. I am rather puzzled, however. The modern concept of molecules to man Evolution was devised by a man who rejected the book of Genesis. The intent of this Evolution idea is to “show” how God did not do things the way it is described in Genesis. It is the humanist religion. Its very premise is that life was not created. Furthermore, it proposes that life came about through the process of death. Molecules to man Evolution requires that countless creatures died in the billions of years prior to mankind’s arrival. And yet before God’s finishing of His creative “act,” God said on several occasions that this was all good. Now, the God of the Bible is the God of life. He is the God of love. Why would He kill all those creatures? According to Evolutionists, it was because these creatures were not “good enough” to survive in a world where those that kill are those that live. The strong survive, the weak die. Theistic Evolution requires that God made something that was less than good. The Bible also teaches that death comes from sin. If there was death before Adam, then that means that there was sin before Adam. Where would that sin have come from? God?

The Bible teaches that it was through one man that sin and death entered into the world. God created a world without sin and death, and it was only through the actions of Adam that death and suffering entered the world. According to Evolution, man has only been on the scene for the most recent portion of history. Before man, there was unimaginable death and suffering. I fail to see how these two perspectives could possibly be compatible. Genesis says six days, with the qualifying “and it was morning, and it was evening.” Evolution says it was billions and billions of years. How are these two consistent with each other?

Evolution has this order (cut and pasted from an Evolutionist website): “(1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures, and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects), and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about), and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man, and more of the various animals and plants.”

Genesis has this order: 1) light; 2) the sky; 3) land and plants; 4) sun, moon, and stars; 5) marine animals and birds; and 6) land animals and man.

How are the above two sequences harmonious?

Evolution has woman before man. Genesis has man before woman. Are these equal to each other? God certainly could have created the world through Evolution, but it does not seem to me that such a god would be the God of the Bible.

The central thing that Darwinian Evolutionists tout as “evidence” of their religion of death is the “fossil record.” The vast, vast majority of fossils consists of sea creatures. Fossil creatures are found having died suddenly in some sort of cataclysm. The dinosaurs have confounded Evolutionists with how they are positioned as if they died from asphyxiation. Even my secular anthropology professor mentioned how the famous “Lucy” ape was killed in a watery catastrophe. Experiments have shown that water will lay down sediment in the same manner as we find sedimentary rock sitting right now.

Despite there not being a drop of liquid water on Mars, NASA is continually saying that Mars had once experienced a global flood. This is in contrast to the humanist rejection of a global flood on Earth, even though there is enough water on Earth to submerge all the dry land were the continents to be flattened with the sea bed.

“First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed” (2 Peter 3:3-6).

Being one who has not forgotten creation, nor the Flood, I am perplexed as to why a fellow believer in Christ would so ignore a literal interpretation in favor of the humanist’s explanation of origins. I’m particularly interested to know what you think Genesis says, as well as where specifically you think Jesus’ genealogy in Luke chap 3 transitions from real to figurative, and why God wouldn’t have told us of our having come from apes.

Respectfully,

ZA

First, here are some things I disagree with, and why–

-the idea of evolution is “inherently anti-God.” I believe the idea of evolution is like gasoline. It is very strong, very powerful in influencing belief. Like gasoline, it can be used by the irresponsible to “explode” the wonderful gem of belief. But it can also be used to explain, to enlighten, to deepen worship of our awesome Creator by deepening understanding. This is the most noble mission of responsible science.

-”an allegorical Adam is inconsistent with a literal Christ and a literal resurrection.” I disagree with this as well. Nowhere in the Bible does God claim that the Bible is consistently one or the other. Jesus constantly used parables to make his points.

-”If the story of Genesis is not literally true, why on earth should anything else in the Bible have any meaning?” I am a practical person. The Bible works. I don’t understand how it works, I can hardly comprehend why it works, but I know it works in my own life and in the lives of others, to nudge and bludgeon and move us into being kinder, more loving, happier, less fearful people. It works if Genesis feels allegorical, and it works if Genesis is taken literally. That’s why.

– “Without Adam there is no reason for Christ’s sacrifice.” I see plenty of reason, right in my own flawed soul, in my own past sins, in my knowledge of my future ones, alas.

****************

Now, the things I agree with. “A Christian who does not challenge a lie is a Christian who has not stood up for God.” Amen, amen, amen. We may disagree about truth, but we must speak up.

“Without the beginning, it is much harder to understand the consummation, and thus this is a root to how many people have found their seed sown along the road.”

I think you are saying that belief in evolution has undermined belief in God. I think that that is, indeed, sadly, true. In fact, “science” has become a kind of religion, the rock that many people cling to as a substitute for the Rock.

And yes, atheists who are intent on evangelizing non-belief (seems like an oxymoron, doesn’t it, but if you read atheistic stuff, it’s extremely evangelical in tone) find ample fodder in the evolutionary theory. No question about it. I have personally seen this, many times, and I imagine you have too.

But my choice is to communicate my understanding that there is no inconsistency. That faith and evolutionary thought can walk hand in hand, and enrich each other.

Like the experience of Jesus, this has to be experienced to be explained. But I am here to say that I know many Christians who have done it. I do know that for many this seems very inconsistent, and I do respect their beliefs as well.

I do hate to see Christians rancorously split over this issue. I think God calls us to discuss it compassionately and respectfully (as is happening right now), and then move on to feeding the lambs.

Grace and peace, Andrea

That does not mean that we should believe in molecules to man Evolution.

Molecules to man Evolution has no textual support from the Bible. Not only that, but this concept of Evolution was created specifically to explain how the universe could arise without the hand of God. It is inherently anti-God. It is supposed to explain a world in which God has no power to directly influence the material. This is completely inconsistent with the Word of God.

Belief in an allegorical nature of Genesis makes it inconsistent to believe in a literal nature of the resurrection. Belief in an allegorical nature of Adam is inconsistent with a belief in the literal nature of Christ. “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being’ ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45). The entrance of sin into the world through Adam is the very reason why Christ came to save humanity. Without Adam, there is no reason for Christ’s sacrifice, and a mockery is made of Jesus’ needless death. To believe in millions and billions of years in the form of molecules to man Evolution is to make God out to be a liar, for all those millions of years of Evolution would have brought about unimaginable suffering and death. This is contrary to what was said, that death entered through Adam. It also makes God out to be a sadistic being who maims and kills for no reason, and then calls this “very good.”

The idea of molecules to man Evolution is based on the statement that there are no miracles that brought humanity into being. Why then should we accept this and then also accept that a dead man rose back to life after three days? Why should we believe that Jesus performed true miracles? If we do not believe that God was speaking literally when He said the earth and all that it contained was created in six days, why should we believe that He was speaking literally when He said that we would live forever? Did Christ not say, “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)

You may not see the inconsistency of holding these two belief systems, but others do. There are scores of people who have realized that it is worthless believing in a god who lied about our past. An example is the prominent anti-theist Eugenie Scott, who was raised in a Christian home, but rejected the Bible because it quite clearly contradicts what is taught as fact in this country. Many see that a book such as the Bible has absolutely no power of explanation if it is able to cover every possible scenario of origins. If its followers can fit an obviously straightforward narrative to something so contradictory as Evolution, then why on earth should anything else in that book have any meaning?

The people who “showed” us that molecules to man Evolution is responsible for our existence are the very same people who use the very same type of “evidence” and the very same type of reasoning to tell us that Jesus was only a man, and that He had nothing heavenly about Him. Why should we believe them? Molecules to man Evolution can and has been shown through objective application of the scientific method to be outright inadequate for the origin of life. It is a lie. Christians are not the children of Satan, the father of lies, but rather of God, whose every word is truth. As a Christian, I am not going to say, “Okay, molecules to man Evolution is true.” Neither am I going to let lies be spread around without presenting the truth. A Christian who does not challenge a lie is a Christian who has not stood up for God. This will make me look like a fool to the world, but that does not upset me. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’” (1 Corinthians 3:19). The dogma of molecules to man Evolution is one that takes away the beginning of the history. Without the beginning, it is much harder to understand the consummation, and thus this is a root to how many people have found their seed sown along the road.

For an athiest’s view on the usefulness of Darwinian Evolution in undermining the New Testament, see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/child.asp

Sincerely in Christ,

ZA

And I think Christians should focus on feeding Christ’s lambs and putting their own houses in order, working together, and not worry so much about evolutionists or Creationsts and who is right. I don’t think Jesus cares what we think about evolution, I think he cares that we love one another.

Andrea

I appreciate the depth of your perception on this issue. Thanks.

Bri