Evolution

[Faith]

Quite a smart one too, I'm pickin'.

The main thing is belonging to the Body of Christ.

Eph 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; (5) one Lord, one faith, one baptism; (6) one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


Heb 12:22-24 But you have come to:

• Mount Zion and to the city of the living God,
• the heavenly Jerusalem,
• to an innumerable company of angels, (23)
• to the general assembly and ekklesia of the firstborn who are registered in heaven,
• to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, (24)
• to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Thanks! But I’m not really very smart, but I do like to learn about subjects I’m interested in.

 

[Faith]

Yes, the true church is all believers worldwide, no matter what denomination they are in. I don't think you can find a denomination you will agree with 100%, so you have to find one that is close and go with it.

Yes, I think there are pros and cons to every church, nothing is perfect.

 

[Spindle4]

Thanks! But I’m not really very smart, but I do like to learn about subjects I’m interested in.

You're humble too . . . all good.

 

[Faith]

Ok, so I also post on another board and have been trying to get an answer that’s not over my head to a question for some time now, which is this, (and I’ll phrase it a bit differently hoping that it’s helpful).….Aside from the Bible, what specifically and scientifically is the reason the LCMS rejects THEISTIC evolution? I get why we reject Darwinian evolution but what about theistic evolution?

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Ok, so I also post on another board and have been trying to get an answer that’s not over my head to a question for some time now, which is this, (and I’ll phrase it a bit differently hoping that it’s helpful).….Aside from the Bible, what specifically and scientifically is the reason the LCMS rejects THEISTIC evolution? I get why we reject Darwinian evolution but what about theistic evolution?

For Missouri Synod's perspective, see this recent article in the LCMS' Lutheran Witness magazine:

Concerning the six-day creation – The Lutheran Witness

There will always be a struggle between faith and reason. In matters of clear teaching of the Bible, however, we must hold to the Scriptures.

witness.lcms.org

I also recommend reading this short article, then see the links to related articles at the end.

Perils of Theistic Evolution

The dangers inherent in arguing for theistic evolution are legion, including the subversion of key doctrines, a denial of Christ

creation.com

 

[Faith]

For Missouri Synod's perspective, see this recent article in the LCMS' Lutheran Witness magazine:

Concerning the six-day creation – The Lutheran Witness

There will always be a struggle between faith and reason. In matters of clear teaching of the Bible, however, we must hold to the Scriptures.

witness.lcms.org

I also recommend reading this short article, then see the links to related articles at the end.

Perils of Theistic Evolution

The dangers inherent in arguing for theistic evolution are legion, including the subversion of key doctrines, a denial of Christ

creation.com

As far as the 1st link, I’ve read it before, but I’m looking for scientific reasons why the LCMS rejects theistic evolution. Or scientific reasons that points away from theistic evolution.

 

[Stravinsk]

Ok, got another one for ya.
The LCMS rejects evolution. So how to explain all the things that indicate evolution happens?

Many of the common proofs/indicators for evolution seem to rest on assumptions based on current observations (specifically dealing with origins) and otherwise, are taught as "common knowledge" (citing some authority).

The first of these would be, for example, tree rings or ice cores. Because we can measure them against time, and plot them on a timeline, one could make the assumption that one only needs to count and arrive at a starting point X years in the past...and it might be correct, for 100 or even 1000 years or more.

The problem, however, making the macro evolution summary is in the assumptions of origin. A tree starts with a seed. So does a man or woman, in their mother's womb. The biblical creation account, on the other hand, starts with a grown man and woman, not seeds or infants. Adam and Eve are adults at 1 day old, able to reproduce. If a literal reading is trusted, why make different assumptions about things that "appear" millions of years old based on a dating system?

The second type of "proof/indicator", that which rests on "common knowledge" is often just an assertion that is expected to be believed because an authority said so. Take the "common knowledge" that the moon's light is a reflection of the sun. Anyone with eyes to see can observe the moon illuminating only clouds close to it when they are present and that this really makes no sense if it's a "sun reflector". Dinosaurs existed, they say, and oh...here's proof...fully formed fossils! But they don't tell you they are plaster and they were created from the imagination that came after finding just a few bones. Authorities have even managed to weigh the sun, if one can believe that!

 

[Fritz Kobus]

As far as the 1st link, I’ve read it before, but I’m looking for scientific reasons why the LCMS rejects theistic evolution. Or scientific reasons that points away from theistic evolution.

LCMS is not likely going to reject evolution on scientific reasons. Rather, and rightly, they reject it on the basis of the Scriptures. The science is nice to look at how the data fit the creation model, but those are theories and subject to change, whereas the Scripture is not subject to change. That God created everything in 6 normal-length days (by earth clocks) is clear, but the details are what creation science probes. Look at starlight and time. That the starlight reached Adam on Day 4 is clear from the Bible. Thanks to the theories of Einstein creation scientists have developed some interesting models for how the starlight could have been seen on Day 4. Of course, as interesting as that may be, it all could be a wasted effort, considering God could just do it, like he did when he changed water to wine.

 

[Faith]

LCMS is not likely going to reject evolution on scientific reasons. Rather, and rightly, they reject it on the basis of the Scriptures. The science is nice to look at how the data fit the creation model, but those are theories and subject to change, whereas the Scripture is not subject to change. That God created everything in 6 normal-length days (by earth clocks) is clear, but the details are what creation science probes. Look at starlight and time. That the starlight reached Adam on Day 4 is clear from the Bible. Thanks to the theories of Einstein creation scientists have developed some interesting models for how the starlight could have been seen on Day 4. Of course, as interesting as that may be, it all could be a wasted effort, considering God could just do it, like he did when he changed water to wine.

Ok, but what scientific reasons are there for me to reject theistic evolution?
Or are there any?

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Ok, but what scientific reasons are there for me to reject theistic evolution?
Or are there any?

Well, as theistic evolution is nothing more than assuming evolution has a god who makes it happen (and may also guide it to some degree) instead of blind chance, then most of the same scientific arguments against evolution would also apply to theistic evolution. Problem is that since you cannot prove or disprove a theory that is not testable, it really boils down to opinion on belief in evolution (theistic or otherwise).

One can say, radiometric dating shows this rock to be a million years old, but that is an estimate based on a number of assumptions that may or may not be valid. So one can say that we really don't know how old that rock is. Or one can say, look at the layers in this rock formation, they must have taken billions of years to form, but we know layers are laid down in a short time by flood waters, so again, nothing is proved. But these are not so much arguments for evolution as arguments for long ages. However, they then take the fossils from these rock layers and claim they are as old as the rocks and since the water also sorts the critters, they then perceive an evolutionary sequence. Or they take a process such as natural selection and claim it is evidence for evolution, when really it is just variation within a kind and limited by the existing genetic material, not generating new genetic information.

But the best evidence against evolution of the atheistic type is that it is impossible to form the complexities of our human bodies and minds by a series of chance events that began with some chemicals in a puddle. Throw a god into the mix and I guess in theory a god can do anything so could make this evolutionary sequence, helping it along at certain points by creating new features to advance a creature to the next stage. But then if such God gave us the Ten Commandments, he certainly would have given us a different message in Genesis 1 and 2 than a 6-day creation. Surely if a god produced the world by evolution, then his bible would start much like Carl Sagan, "Billions and billions of years ago..."

 

[Faith]

Well, as theistic evolution is nothing more than assuming evolution has a god who makes it happen (and may also guide it to some degree) instead of blind chance, then most of the same scientific arguments against evolution would also apply to theistic evolution. Problem is that since you cannot prove or disprove a theory that is not testable, it really boils down to opinion on belief in evolution (theistic or otherwise).

One can say, radiometric dating shows this rock to be a million years old, but that is an estimate based on a number of assumptions that may or may not be valid. So one can say that we really don't know how old that rock is. Or one can say, look at the layers in this rock formation, they must have taken billions of years to form, but we know layers are laid down in a short time by flood waters, so again, nothing is proved. But these are not so much arguments for evolution as arguments for long ages. However, they then take the fossils from these rock layers and claim they are as old as the rocks and since the water also sorts the critters, they then perceive an evolutionary sequence. Or they take a process such as natural selection and claim it is evidence for evolution, when really it is just variation within a kind and limited by the existing genetic material, not generating new genetic information.

But the best evidence against evolution of the atheistic type is that it is impossible to form the complexities of our human bodies and minds by a series of chance events that began with some chemicals in a puddle. Throw a god into the mix and I guess in theory a god can do anything so could make this evolutionary sequence, helping it along at certain points by creating new features to advance a creature to the next stage. But then if such God gave us the Ten Commandments, he certainly would have given us a different message in Genesis 1 and 2 than a 6-day creation. Surely if a god produced the world by evolution, then his bible would start much like Carl Sagan, "Billions and billions of years ago..."

Good points!