Once I was at a local Mexican restaurant, and there were a bunch of Christian tracts in a tray. I took one that read "Evolution and Christianity" on the cover. However, I was with family, so I had to wait until I got home to read it. In retrospect, I should have fucking raided that bin for a copy of every single tract, because the one I got was full of pure comedy gold. (Emphasis in bold)
Q: What is meant by calling evolution a theory? What is a theory?
A: The simplest definition is that a theory is an unproven idea that is intended to explain something. ''For example, we all observe light, yet has anyone ever been able to explain exactly what light is? Through the years, many different theories have attempted to explain light, but each in turn was discarded when a newer theory was developed.
A theory may seem reasonable, and it may be widely accepted. Even though it is supported by evidence, it is not necessarily a fact.
A theory, by definition, is unproven.
Fuckin' light beams, how do they work?
Q: Are you saying that the theory of evolution is unproven?
So all those cops who solve cases are relying on faith?
A: Yes, or it wouldn't be called a theory. It is not proven because no one was there to observe it happen, nor can any experiments be done to demonstrate it.
Q: Does it take faith to believe in evolution?
A: Yes, faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. When we talk about these things, the very language that we use reveals that these things are matters of faith.
We say, "I believe in evolution," Or "I believe in creation".
Q: But isn't there evidence of evolution? Doesn't science prove from the evidence that evolution is true?
A: Not necessarily. Scientists who believe in creation look at the same evidence that evolutionists look at, but they arrive at different conclusions.
Each group considers the same evidence, but interprets that evidence differently.
So scientific truth is relative? If that's the case, then can anything be known?
Q: Some Christians claim that God didn't explain evolution because people of long ago could not have understood it, and that's why the first two chapters of Genesis say what they do. What about that?
A: If we accept that line of reasoning, we are saying in essence that God did not tell us the truth. However, the Bible not only reveals that God loves truth, but that God actually is the truth. (John 14:6) It also says that He cannot lie! (Titus 1:2) He cannot lie, because He Himself is the truth. One of the Ten Commandments states, "Thou shalt not bear false witness [lie] ..." (Exodus 20:16). Does it seem reasonable that God would have a higher standard for us than for Himself?
I have actually never heard this argument put forward by a Christian, so I have to wonder where they got it from. In fact, the more I read it, the more this looks like it was written by a person who's having a bit of a crisis of faith.
If God cannot lie, then he doesn't have free will. So what made him create the universe?
If God is truth, and God loves truth, then does God love himself? That would explain why he's such a jealous God.
Also, it seems like God does
have a higher standard for humans than he has for himself. According to Genesis, God murdered all but a handful of humans in the Flood, even children and infants - all because he was irresponsible enough to put the Forbidden Fruit in the garden with two conscienceless humans and an evil snake, which he also created. And if we assume that God is all-knowing, then he would surely know the consequences of his actions, yet he went along with his "divine plan" anyway, which means that According to the Bible, God was directly responsible for introducing evil and suffering into the world
. All that bad stuff in the world today? It's because Eve ate an apple that God forgot to put maximum-security fencing around.
Q: Doesn't the Bible itself say somewhere that one day and a thousand years are the same thing to god? Doesn't that bring evolution and the Genesis record together?
A: No. That verse is found in 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This verse is not telling us that a day and a thousand years are the same thing, but it is telling us that God does not experience time in the same way that we do. Still, if God had used six thousand years to create, or six million years, or six hundred million years, why didn't He simply tell us? Instead, the Bible records that he did it in six days, and emphasizes that fact by saying, "... and the evening and the morning were like the first [or second, or third, or fourth, etc.] day" (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
This doesn't make any sense. Even if God can't lie
, per se, he can still withhold the truth
or, perhaps, be mistaken. Again, if God experiences time differently than we do, then a thousand years to us could be one day to him, or possibly longer. But if God is Truth, then why does God differ from humans in matters of the perception of time?
Although I believe in the God of creation, I was once an ardent believer in evolution. I believed in evolution for the same reason that most people do. It was all I ever heard. It was all I was ever taught. In our society there is tremendous peer pressure that it is unintelligent to believe in creation. There is a bias, and sometimes opposition, in the academic and scientific communities against those colleagues who choose to believe creation.
Bullshit. The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution because it's true
. It's not like in elementary school where all the kids make little "clubs" with strict criteria. And as for that first part, try telling that to any evolutionist who's had to grow up in the Bible Belt.
There's also this final gem:
The Bible was not written to teach science, but this does not mean that it is scientifically inaccurate.
To be fair to the pamphlet, it did
get the theory of evolution 90% right, which is very rare among creationists. It also admitted that there is no proof for "intelligent design", and that it is a matter of individual faith, which the pamphlet also admits is simply blindly believing in things without evidence. So at least it's not trying to push the "scientific proofs of creation" nonsense.