Should any Christian Hold to Theistic Evolution then?

As to me seems to be attempting to accommodate the bible with false theory of evolution, and ends up many times as a denial of Genesis even being a historical account of the beginnings
 
The Bible does not give the specifics of how God created, however, there is no evidence that Darwin's theory ever happened. The fossil evidence shows that animals appear fully intact and disappear fully intact without any significant change. Theistic evolution is an attempt to fuse a wrong theory with the word of God. It fails miserably because evolution didn't happen. God said "Let there be..." and spoke creation into existence. The evidence supports creation.
 
The Bible does not give the specifics of how God created, however, there is no evidence that Darwin's theory ever happened. The fossil evidence shows that animals appear fully intact and disappear fully intact without any significant change. Theistic evolution is an attempt to fuse a wrong theory with the word of God. It fails miserably because evolution didn't happen. God said "Let there be..." and spoke creation into existence. The evidence supports creation.
Totally agree with you, as Thestic Evolution worst problem is it makes Humans just an evolved primate, and not a special creation in very image of God
 
I don't think a Christian should hold to a "fslse" theory of anything.

A Christian should not hold to a "false" theory of redemption. But that does not mean that redemption is false.
 
Theistic evolution is heretical.
I would be a little circumspect before I use the term 'heretical'.

Consider the case of Galileo Galelei:

He was convictedof heresy in 1633. Looking into his case, it becomes clear (at least to me) that the church's views were highly influened by Aristotilean views (and the scriptures had been 'interpreted' on the light of Arisotilean teaching). "According to Arisotle" was a common aphorism reguarding accepted truth.

Thus, the Greek ideals of philosophy (including the concepts of 'platonic' solids such as a sphere) became the basis for understanding all of creation. Galileo's idea of a heliocentric view of the solar system did not sit well with the Greekified presumptions.

Today, we do not worry too much about such things, but note that certain models fit the observed data better than others. Thus, we talk about the Earth orbiting the Sun and the moon orbiting the Earth, and the local stars having motions proper to their observed frames.

It is not so much as Galileo having the one and only right answer, but that his views and assumptions gave consistently relible predictions of celestial observations.

I note that Pope John Paul II finally felt compelled to issue an apology in 1992 saying that it had erred in its judgement in this matter.

So to give a direct answer to the original question

Should any Christian Hold to Theistic Evolution then?

With some reservation to the use of "theistic" in this question, I would say that Evolution in the Darwinian sense (as opposed to the Lamarkian sense) has strong supporting evidence.

As far as the term 'Theistic', I could say that whatever truth there is in electronics, could be said to support theistic electronics since the whole of creation is an expression of the devine nature.
 
I would be a little circumspect before I use the term 'heretical'.

Consider the case of Galileo Galelei:

He was convictedof heresy in 1633. Looking into his case, it becomes clear (at least to me) that the church's views were highly influened by Aristotilean views (and the scriptures had been 'interpreted' on the light of Arisotilean teaching). "According to Arisotle" was a common aphorism reguarding accepted truth.

Thus, the Greek ideals of philosophy (including the concepts of 'platonic' solids such as a sphere) became the basis for understanding all of creation. Galileo's idea of a heliocentric view of the solar system did not sit well with the Greekified presumptions.

Today, we do not worry too much about such things, but note that certain models fit the observed data better than others. Thus, we talk about the Earth orbiting the Sun and the moon orbiting the Earth, and the local stars having motions proper to their observed frames.

It is not so much as Galileo having the one and only right answer, but that his views and assumptions gave consistently relible predictions of celestial observations.

I note that Pope John Paul II finally felt compelled to issue an apology in 1992 saying that it had erred in its judgement in this matter.

So to give a direct answer to the original question

Should any Christian Hold to Theistic Evolution then?

With some reservation to the use of "theistic" in this question, I would say that Evolution in the Darwinian sense (as opposed to the Lamarkian sense) has strong supporting evidence.

As far as the term 'Theistic', I could say that whatever truth there is in electronics, could be said to support theistic electronics since the whole of creation is an expression of the devine nature.
Evolution is naturalistic philosophy hiding behind a scientific mask. It is pursued by atheists as fervently as any theist would pursue a religion.
 
I would be a little circumspect before I use the term 'heretical'.

Consider the case of Galileo Galelei:

He was convictedof heresy in 1633. Looking into his case, it becomes clear (at least to me) that the church's views were highly influened by Aristotilean views (and the scriptures had been 'interpreted' on the light of Arisotilean teaching). "According to Arisotle" was a common aphorism reguarding accepted truth.

Thus, the Greek ideals of philosophy (including the concepts of 'platonic' solids such as a sphere) became the basis for understanding all of creation. Galileo's idea of a heliocentric view of the solar system did not sit well with the Greekified presumptions.

Today, we do not worry too much about such things, but note that certain models fit the observed data better than others. Thus, we talk about the Earth orbiting the Sun and the moon orbiting the Earth, and the local stars having motions proper to their observed frames.

It is not so much as Galileo having the one and only right answer, but that his views and assumptions gave consistently relible predictions of celestial observations.

I note that Pope John Paul II finally felt compelled to issue an apology in 1992 saying that it had erred in its judgement in this matter.

So to give a direct answer to the original question

Should any Christian Hold to Theistic Evolution then?

With some reservation to the use of "theistic" in this question, I would say that Evolution in the Darwinian sense (as opposed to the Lamarkian sense) has strong supporting evidence.

As far as the term 'Theistic', I could say that whatever truth there is in electronics, could be said to support theistic electronics since the whole of creation is an expression of the devine nature.
The problem though any form of evolution is that it come in with an atheist's framwork, dening a Creator God, and thus denies the Fall, Jesus, the cross, resurrection basically a scientific explanation of life minus the Creator and leads to survival of the fittest when taken to its ogical conclusion, so end up with abortion mills and Nazi Germany
 
Atheist evolutionists are actually a new form of pagans, those who worship themselves and nature. They deny the existence of God, just as the ancients did, yet they attribute to nature and to themselves all the powers and attributes of God.
And they still have NO working theory for origin of life, as now current theory is that comets and meteors brought life to earth eons ago, b ut where did THAT life comes from then?
 
I would think that evolution within the species is reasonable such as in adapting to an environment. But God is the only creator so anything outside the boundaries of that creation is out. Science has erred many times in it understanding of creation and as God allows man to dabble in His 'laboratory' Science will continue to mess up to the point that we (Satan's Eden) will destroy itself, for Satan is not a creator his can only pervert that which already is. Another example is all our GMO goods, it is killing us but we just keep right on going because our motive and objective is wrong. Looking back we see Cain's people were the builders and pushing forward as in Science Able was a sheep herder, simple more in tune with the original creation. I'm not against Science I appreciate all the conveniences but at the end of the road I'm not looking to Science I'm looking up. So I interact with the world around me but we are not of this world so why fuss about it?
 
I would think that evolution within the species is reasonable such as in adapting to an environment. But God is the only creator so anything outside the boundaries of that creation is out. Science has erred many times in it understanding of creation and as God allows man to dabble in His 'laboratory' Science will continue to mess up to the point that we (Satan's Eden) will destroy itself, for Satan is not a creator his can only pervert that which already is. Another example is all our GMO goods, it is killing us but we just keep right on going because our motive and objective is wrong. Looking back we see Cain's people were the builders and pushing forward as in Science Able was a sheep herder, simple more in tune with the original creation. I'm not against Science I appreciate all the conveniences but at the end of the road I'm not looking to Science I'm looking up. So I interact with the world around me but we are not of this world so why fuss about it?
That is why all of the animals could fit on Noah Ark, as say a pair of dogs would have within them genetic blueprint to have all of the various dog species that would be born afterwards
 
Back
Top