Creation vs. Evolution

[Bryan]

Hi All,

I came across this link which is a transcript of a radio debate held on KERA a few years back. What is interesting about this debate is the Creationist believes that evolution was a part of Creation.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/fazale_rana_glenn_mitchell_show.shtml

 

[sandjeep]

NetDoc,

Please define inerrant as you see it and how it relates to the Bible.

 

[The Chairman]

in·er·rant
PRONUNCIATION: n-rnt
ADJECTIVE: 1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors.

Neither the OT or the NT claims to be inerrent. However, many believers predicate much of their beliefs on this hard line stance that is not supported by the scriptures that they deify. Not nearly enough emphasis is placed on the revelation of God's will by his Spirit, which has been promised to indwell the true believer.

 

[H2Andy]

What is interesting about this debate is the Creationist believes that evolution was a part of Creation.

yes, some do believe that.

it's hard to ignore the evidence with a straight face.

however, many Christians do not believe in evolution at all.

Neither the OT or the NT claims to be inerrent.

i agree. the problem is that when you admit that, the BIble becomes "just another book."

at best, it becomes one of several competing ancient books of wisdom.

thus, it's a difficult thing for many to accept

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

shakeybrainsurgeon,



As I’ve said, the study of science is fine, until you step over that line dealing with origins.

Since when is dealing with origins "across the line"? Is the work on the origins of life or of the origins of the cosmos somehow immoral, irreligious, taboo? Should we ban research into background radiation, RNA enzymes, and anthropologic fossil research as "crossing the line". Other than boundaries regarding human experimentation, I see science as having no "line" to cross.

Of course, there was a time when studying anatomy was forbidden by the Church (we might find out that we aren't divine machines but flesh and blood, like chickens) and, lest we forget, Galileo was threatened with the rack for his heliocentric theory (everyone "knew" God put earth at the center of the universe). Religion has always sought to draw lines around science because the truth often conflicts with dogma. However, science always wins. Creationism, too, shall pass. Wait a minute, I forgot. It already has.

 

[sandjeep]

in·er·rant
PRONUNCIATION: n-rnt
ADJECTIVE: 1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors.

Neither the OT or the NT claims to be inerrent. However, many believers predicate much of their beliefs on this hard line stance that is not supported by the scriptures that they deify. Not nearly enough emphasis is placed on the revelation of God's will by his Spirit, which has been promised to indwell the true believer.

Timothy seems to be saying it does. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

I think that he's talking about OT in this context. I also believe that Jesus spoke on the infallible word of the OT.

The problem with the inerrancy of the Bible is that as Andy said. If the Bible is not inerrant, then what part is not or is it all wrong or is nothing wrong. How does one decide which part is right and which part is wrong.

It is one of the more diffucult questions to be answered to say the least.

 

[sandjeep]

Since when is dealing with origins "across the line"? Is the work on the origins of life or of the origins of the cosmos somehow immoral, irreligious, taboo? Should we ban research into background radiation, RNA enzymes, and anthropologic fossil research as "crossing the line". Other than boundaries regarding human experimentation, I see science as having no "line" to cross.

It is 'across' the line when the State overides the wishes of the parents in any area period.

Other than boundaries regarding human experimentation, I see science as having no "line" to cross.

Oh, wait just a minute here. Why is there a line over this?

 

[The Chairman]

i agree. the problem is that when you admit that, the BIble becomes "just another book."

I would never regard it as "just another book". God's will is in there: you just have to read it with your heart and by using the Spirit. Trying to understand the spiritual from a secular perspective is like trying to understand ASL if you are blind.

 

[sandjeep]

Trying to understand the spiritual from a secular perspective is like trying to understand ASL if you are blind.

spot on!

 

[adurso]

It is 'across' the line when the State overides the wishes of the parents in any area period.

Are you seriously suggesting education by democratic acclaim? In another post you allude to this as well. If the parents in my school system wish their progeny to be taught that pi is equal to three that this should be so?