Creation/Evolution Persuasion Motivation?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Imagine two Christians: one who interprets creation literally, and the other who doesn't. They both wish to wish to evangelize a non-believer who has stated that he believes the claims of science concerning evolution and has therefore rejected the Bible and hence, Christianity.

The literalist Christian will attempt to show the non-believer that creation is scientfically supportable and reasonable while demonstrating problems with the science of evolution.
The non-literalist Christian will attempt to show the non-believer that evolution does not contradict the Bible at all, but that there are interpretive principles that do not discount evolution.

Thus, I can understand the motivation that either of these Christians might have for trying to convince the non-believer of their position.

But what drives the apparent need we Christians seem to have to convince each other? Is it only the joy of discussion/debate? Is it simply our general human desire to be agreed with or is it more important than that?

To ask another way:

Do you creationists see a danger or problem for those who accept a God-driven evolution? If so, what is it?
Do you Christian evolutionists see a danger or problem for those who accept a literal version of creation? If so, what is it?

Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

I can imagine the literalist being concerned that others know the truth about creation and not believe the lies of science.

I can imagine the non-literalist being concerned that creationists make Christianity look head-in-the-sand ignorant.

Personally, my own beliefs begin and end with, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The how of that creation is of little concern to me, along with other people's beliefs on the matter. As far as the first concern, I have no quibble with science. In regards to the other, Christianity has always appeared foolish to the world and, in my view, the creationists certainly aren't the most offensive source of foolishness in today's world.

The thing that bothers me more than the nature of someone's beliefs is their arrogance in presenting those beliefs. The primary place I encounter arrogance in regard to the creation/evolution debate is on Christian radio. Fortunately, it only takes a push of a button to leave that annoyance behind.

Marsha

Imagine two Christians: one who interprets creation literally, and the other who doesn't. They both wish to wish to evangelize a non-believer who has stated that he believes the claims of science concerning evolution and has therefore rejected the Bible and hence, Christianity.

The literalist Christian will attempt to show the non-believer that creation is scientfically supportable and reasonable while demonstrating problems with the science of evolution.
The non-literalist Christian will attempt to show the non-believer that evolution does not contradict the Bible at all, but that there are interpretive principles that do not discount evolution.

Thus, I can understand the motivation that either of these Christians might have for trying to convince the non-believer of their position.

But what drives the apparent need we Christians seem to have to convince each other? Is it only the joy of discussion/debate? Is it simply our general human desire to be agreed with or is it more important than that?

To ask another way:

Do you creationists see a danger or problem for those who accept a God-driven evolution? If so, what is it?
Do you Christian evolutionists see a danger or problem for those who accept a literal version of creation? If so, what is it?

Wilson

[Joel Merrill]

It doesn't bother me so much that people believe in evolution as much as it bothers me that they don't want to see scientific evidence that supports Creation. It's like Christians just want to be accepted by the world and they are afraid they will be made a fun of. Since God has been taken out of the schools, we have all gradually been brainwashed into believing evolution. In reality there are a great many problems with evolution and a great deal of solid science supporting Creation. In my life time I've seen evolutionists go from saying "we think this is how it happened" to "this is scientific fact." Yet it isn't fact. Most of the time they are just guessing. Many times they just ignore evidence that doesn't support their theory.

I do not take the Bible absolutely literal but I have a problem when we start dismissing large portions of scripture because we don't understand it. That is a slippery slope to be on. Of course Genesis doesn't tell in detail how God created everything but if he created everything through the Big Bang and Evolution, he could have given a more "truthful" account to Moses. Why couldn't he have? Why tell Moses something that isn't true. I posted a couple book reports on the book forum. I doubt if anyone here will read them because their mind is already made up.

As far as witnessing goes. It's better to get them saved first and not waste a lot of time discussing controversial things. I've seen many times when someone appears to be interested in the Gospel but then just wants to argue. I don't fall for that game. If they really want to know, I will tell them what I think but I won't get in an argument with them.

Joel

[Billy Cox]

Since God has been taken out of the schools, we have all gradually been brainwashed into believing evolution.

I understand that religion is mostly frowned on in public schools, but since God is not a religion, one cannot really banish God.

I am familiar with both evolution and creation science. While it is true that some scientists have embraced the theory of evolution to the point of it being dogma, the answer is not to replace it with another dogma.

[Billy Cox]

Imagine two Christians: one who interprets creation literally, and the other who doesn't. They both wish to wish to evangelize a non-believer who has stated that he believes the claims of science concerning evolution and has therefore rejected the Bible and hence, Christianity.


I am an I.T. guy, not a salesperson, but I know enough about sales to change the subject if a red herring, no-win topic comes up.

[Genevieve Boller]

I don't get it either. When talking to other Christians, I have two subjects I will never discuss - Hell and Creation/Evolution.

If another person brings them up I will either change the subject, or say something polite but firm ("I find it best not to discuss that issue), or if they are insistent, excuse myself and go do something else.

Both issues are very emotional (for reasons I don't entirely understand) and, like politics, the likelihood of changing someone else's opinion is pretty small. So why bother? Why get everyone's hackles up? Surely we have better things we could expend energy on.

Of course, discussing sensitive issues with people with whom you know you can have a reasonable, unemotional debate can be enlightening and even fun. But I find there are very few people who enjoy that kind of debate.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Is it simply our general human desire to be agreed with or is it more important than that?


I believe it's more important than simply being agreed with. I've posted these comments before, however, I will post them again:

First, how one views creation/evolution does not affect one's salvation. Although creation/evolution is a secondary issue in Christianity, I've seen (and nearly experienced myself) people lose their salvation over the issue. What generally happens is that someone is raised a 7-day literal creationist. When exposed to the overwhelming evidence which supports evolution the individual feels that he has been lied to, causing him to start questioning everything he was taught, and wondering what teachings are false.

Again, I, myself, went through this. Thankfully the prayers of my parents (and grandparents) kept me from straying from the faith. Going through the process, though, was very uncomfortable. As a YEC, my ignorance about science and evolution caused me to doubt evolution's veracity, at the same time my ignorance about biblical inspiration and revelation caused me to misread and misunderstand the creation account. As I gained knowledge about both subjects, it resulted in a paradigm shift in my understanding of Scripture and the natural world, which can be a scary thing to go through.

Now, I know there will be some who will disagree with the following statement but in order understand the context of what follows, this statement has to be made (although I agree with this statement, it is not my opinion, it is the position of scientists): Science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution has happened and continues to happen. The Theory of Evolution has as much supporting evidence as gravity.

With that statement in mind, let me set the context for what happened 3 weeks ago. I work in IT at a small engineering university in Indiana. We have been rated number 1 by US News and World Report for the past 8 years. Our students are very bright and are at the top of their class. We receive 3500 applications for 450 freshmen positions. Our curriculum is very heavy in math and science.

3 weeks ago, a YEC came to campus to give a talk (he was NOT officially invited by the university, rather a Christian female student asked him to come and give a talk to whoever wanted to attend. InterVarsity ended up sponsoring the event.) The talk was titled "New Scientific Evidence Against Macro-evolution - A Physicians Perspective". During the time leading up to the event, the location of the talked was changed several times, each time to a bigger and bigger classroom. The person giving the talk was an physician from Plainfield, IN. His presentation consisted of Powerpoint slides from Anchor's Away Ministries. He had 7 main points (I can't remember them all now), but each of the 7 points were the same old rehash of already debunked evidence (2nd law of Thermodynamics, Irreducible Complexity, numerous quote mines).

Our audience listened respectfully during his hour long presentation. However, when it came Question and Answer time he was totally annihilated (you don't misuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in front of PhD's in engineering). The students did the majority of the skewering, followed by a couple of professors debunking the use of the bacterial flagellum as evidence for design. It was like watching a train wreck, and I felt sorry for the guy.

I do not question the motives of the speaker. I believe his motives were evangelical in nature, and I'm sure he wanted to be a witness for Christ. However, his ignorance on Creation/Evolution, and science in general, made Christianity appear to be a joke. I honestly think he did more harm than good (based on Letters to the Editor in campus newspaper which appeared after his presentation). Unfortunately, this was a perfect example of what St. Augustine said:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

[Dale Cozby]

Wilson, the hard thing is that both sides tend to discount the other without a full hearing. Often the name calling starts before the first idea is dropped on the table. Stereo typing the other side is a bad thing but...a very human thing.

I believe that both can offer valid viewpoints, I don't think it matters to one's faith other than it may help to explain further some questions that come up like: why is there so much evil in the world? or why do we suffer like we do? or what makes man unique among creation that God would come and die for us or did he die for ALL of creation equally, man included?

I think in the end where one stands on this issue helps us to develop our philosophy more than our theology.

And I do appreciate your post in the other thread. Please add in again. We on the topic of original sin and evolution right now.

here are some scriptures to keep in mind.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Genevieve, my approach is similar to yours. I give people permission to disagree with me and then tell them what I believe.

I couple of years ago I was asked during church membership class if the church really believed the Noah and the Ark and Jonah and the big fish stories in the Bible. I replied, "the church believes that we are to read those stories and learn something about how God works in the world. It may be that these events are literal events and it may be that they are stories to teach us about God or something in between. You don't have to have believe they are actual, historical accounts to be a member of the church or to be a Christian."

I then added, "Now, I'll give you my opinion. I believe God is the Creator of the Universe. If he could create a Universe he could create a big fish that a man could survive in and he could send a great flood." I told them that I tend, therefore, to believe the accounts are historical events. However, if someone proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they aren't historical, it would not shake my faith in the least because my faith is in God, not in my understanding of the Bible.

That seemed to satisfy the issue for them.

I tend to believe that God created humanity from the dust. I don't think the Creation story ever intended to describe 6 24 hour days. I don't think a person has to arrive at some specific version of that story to "believe the Bible" and I sure don't think they have to do that to be a follower of Jesus.



I don't get it either. When talking to other Christians, I have two subjects I will never discuss - Hell and Creation/Evolution.

If another person brings them up I will either change the subject, or say something polite but firm ("I find it best not to discuss that issue), or if they are insistent, excuse myself and go do something else.

Both issues are very emotional (for reasons I don't entirely understand) and, like politics, the likelihood of changing someone else's opinion is pretty small. So why bother? Why get everyone's hackles up? Surely we have better things we could expend energy on.

Of course, discussing sensitive issues with people with whom you know you can have a reasonable, unemotional debate can be enlightening and even fun. But I find there are very few people who enjoy that kind of debate.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... Please add in again.

...

Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.


OK, Dale, make up your mind. Should I "add in again" or should I "not have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments?" :basic05

Wilson