How theistic evolution affects Christian theology (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-08)
Articles
21


Some leading Christians have said that
evolution has no effect on the Christian faith. Can evolution be blended with the Bible?
What would that look like? Today on Creation Magazine LIVE! Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE!, my
name is Richard Fangrad and I’m Calvin Smith. Now this week we’re talking about theistic
evolution and how that affects Christianity. That is our
topic on Creation Magazine LIVE! this week. Theistic evolution by the way, is the idea that God used
evolution to create. So He basically gave the universe a
kick start and then let it do its thing, or some
others might believe that God zapped in a few mutations along the way to make
things come out the way that He thought they should. Francis
Collins is a well-known
geneticist and he’s the head, the founder of BioLogos, a theistic evolutionary organization, and he said this. Being outside of nature God is also
outside of space and time hence at the moment at the creation of
the universe God could also have activated evolution with full knowledge of how it would turn
out perhaps even including our having this
conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our
own desires becomes entirely acceptable. Well the huge the theological problem of
course is death before sin right from the
beginning. In a review of the book called The Adam quest, the reviewer make some
points regarding theistic evolution. He says, This point exposes the most
significant problem with evolutionary creationism as a whole, the Bible. I agree! By
requiring pain and death in the beginning evolution tells a different story of the
world than the Bible does, and only recently have evolutionary
creationists begun to take this challenge with full seriousness. Whether their
alternative readings of Genesis merit serious consideration is another matter. Stafford firmly believes in the
authority of Scripture, but he isn’t convinced the young earth creationist view is the right one. If he had nothing else
to go on he would except a young earth interpretation
of Genesis. Wow, cool. So the author has admitted
that theistic evolution has nothing to do with what the words of
Scripture actually say. Kind of interesting. Yes, with nothing else
to go on you’d just have to say that God created! That these interpretations ultimately come because of what some in
the scientific community are saying. Right, now he also
says he firmly believes in the authority of Scripture but what exactly does the authority of
Scripture mean then? There was a time
when the majority of scientists believed in a young earth and creation by God. A couple of hundred years ago the majority of scientists would have said that. So if the the majority of scientist
change their mind lets say a hundred years from now, does that mean the account of truth in the Bible is going to change
a hundred years from now? Isn’t what they’re really saying here, doesn’t it just mean that whatever the
majority of scientists believe, that’s what truth is, not the
Bible? So what has more authority, the Bible
or fallible human interpretation? That
phrase doesn’t mean anything if its not based on what the plain reading of
scriptures says. That’s sort of what it all comes down to doesn’t it? One reviewer went on to say “Instead he
believes evolutionary creationism offers the greatest opportunity to bridge the
gap and effectively end the culture war
between faith and science- if it can begin taking the Bible
seriously enough. But again the problem is the Bible
itself. The fact that scholars are devising
alternate readings reveals the problem, to say nothing of
the implications up such reinterpretations.” Right, now
we’re going to get to some the implications in the next segment but here’s a point I’d like to make. You
know, throughout the article there is this emphasis on unity, right? Christians should
be united. And we agree. You know Christians hold to fundamentals of the faith and we should all do that, and we
should all be united. But see the point is, this is not like a
denominational issue. All of the different
denominations of Christianity would would hold to certain things but they
would all argue from the words on the Bible to say this is why I
hold to that view. But in this
case, and we’ve seen it here from their own admission… Their own
admission… is that what they’re doing is taking ideas from outside the Bible and then
determining how they should interpret the scripture. And they’re the
ones calling for unity. And they’re the ones calling for unity. How can you have
unity if it’s not unified around one
concept, the words of what God has revealed to us. That’s how unity is achieved isn’t it? You look at scripture and you draw the
main… everyone rallies around the truth of Scripture. Then you have unity. So if a hundred
years from now scientists determine some other idea of origins, then truth
is a constantly moving target. We’ll get into this when we get back… For a long time we’ve
been told that human and chimp DNA is over 98 percent identical but even though this figure has now been
revised to 95 percent or less, does that mean thst chimps are 95 percent
human? Surprising as it may seem, ninety-nine percent of mouse genes are
present in human DNA. Yet no one would consider a mouse
ninety-nine percent human. And humans also share about 50 percent of our DNA
with bananas but that doesn’t mean where half bananas.
Humans are undoubtedly unique. An evolutionary scientists conceded this
when he wrote; “A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other
bipedal mammal, no other mammal controls and uses fire,
writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or
prays”. But the Bible tells us of the most distinguishing human characteristic
of all. Humans are made in God’s image and that
makes us rather special. To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website creation.com. Well if you just tuned in today we’re
talking about how theistic evolution affects Christianity. Look at
this popular Christian magazine here, see the picture?
That’s from Christianity Today and their depiction of Adam is
like some kind of ape man, and then the tag line here on the
front cover says “Some scientists believe genome science cast doubt on the
existence of the first man and woman, others say the integrity of the faith
requires it.” You know, what are some of the implications here of theistic evolution? Well one of them is that
Adam wasn’t a historical figure, wasn’t a real historical figure, it’s just
some kind of mythology… we came from ape men… …and you wrote a great article on
this on our website called ‘BioLogos,
theistic evolution and the Pelagian heresy”. This idea of debating an historical Adam and the destruction of the
Gospel, yeah and you can read that by the way at Creation.com/biologos-pelagian-heresy So tell everybody here, I’ve read the
article, what is the problem in not believing in a historical Adam?
The article focused on just one of the major theological issues with theistic evolution, and that’s if there’s
no historical Adam its as bad as the heresy of
Plagianism. Pelagius taught, many, many years ago, that people are born with a blank slate,
they’re not born into sin. So if you’re not
born into sin Pelagius argued that you can choose God and you can you know, you’re completely free. You’re able to able to do that.
Well Augustine argued that, no, the reason we need a Saviour is because we are born as sinners, we have a sin
nature that we’ve inherited from Adam. Actually if you think of the virgin
birth, the reason we argue for a virgin birth is that Jesus did not inherit the sin
nature from Joseph. Otherwise it would have disqualified him from being our Savior.
That’s the basics of the Pelagian Heresy. And BioLogos is
arguing that they’re never even was a historical Adam! That’s even worse than Pelagianism! No original sin. That’s right, yeah. Even though many Christians would say
that belief in theistic evolution is not a Salvation issue, it certainly could be salvation issue
when you push it to this conclusion. You actually get to the point of heresy. With no original sin, what’s Jesus
saving us from? It’s so important that a
famous German Lutheran theologian, a prominent church historian,
this guy knows a lot about church history, said: “There has never, perhaps, been another crisis of equal importance in church history in which the opponents have expressed the principles at issue so clearly and abstractly. The Arian dispute before the Nicene Council can alone be compared with it.” So the Pelagian
heresy was a big deal and we see Biologos making that
same mistake today. I love what you said in your article, and I’ll quote you here; “The astounding naivety
with which some theistic evolutionists play around with the notion of
‘no Adam’ is like a child who’s found his dad’s
gun. They toy with this concept seemingly without any idea that will blow their heads off,
literally the head of the human race, and with it the doctrine of original sin. Biologos in response to
the question, ‘How does original sin fit with evolutionary history?’, they casually suggest that, “Evolution
does not raise questions about our current state of sinfulness. It does
however raise questions about how and when the first sin occurred, and how this fallen state was
transmitted to all people. The sciences of evolution and archaeology can provide
some insight into these questions but are not equipped to answer them.
These questions are theological and over the centuries the church has considered many possible answers.” Now what those ‘many possible answers are’ isn’t
specified, but what this teaching doesn’t
allow is the view of the Church throughout history, that’s what it doesn’t
allow. If Adam’s sin didn’t lead to
the condemnation for all man then why should anyone
believe that Jesus’ one act of righteousness would lead to the
saving of all people, the justification of all men.
It says that in Romans 5:18. You know it seems like a prerequisite
for theistic evolutionist is a very low view scripture. And particularly Genesis and you can’t really have a high view of Scripture while at
the same time you mangle Genesis to force fit evolution and millions
of years into this concept. And
that’s a serious issue with theistic evolution a low view of Scripture, they mangle
theology. It’s worse than the heresy of
Pelagianism. If you don’t even have a historical Adam then you don’t have
original sin. What on earth are we being saved from? What’s Jesus saving us from? The whole thing falls apart and there’s big organizations out there
promoting this to Christians. Creation Ministries International staff, many from a wide variety of scientific disciplines have produced thousands of articles now available in a massive online database. Some of the topics covered include; The feasibility of Noah’s Ark and evidence for a global flood, scientific arguments that explain observations in astronomy within a ‘young earth’ time frame. Recent discoveries that support dinosaurs fitting with Biblical history Evidence from biology that shows that the type of change that is observed in living things has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Got questions? Get answers at Creation.com. On this week’s episode we’re talking about how theistic evolution affects Christianity. Now theistic
evolutionary groups like Biologos claim that there’s no evidence for Adam
and Eve, and there’s no a physical way we could have come from
two ancestors in the recent past. As mentioned, a high-profile article,
the Christianity Today article I mentioned, actually had this quote in it; “Collins
2006 bestseller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief… reported scientific indications that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors perhaps 100,000 years ago long before the
Genesis time frame- and originated with a population that numbered something like 10,000, not two individuals.”They also had this quote; “In a recent Pro Evolution book from InterVarsity Press, The Language of Science and Faith, Collins and co-author Karl W. Giberson escalate matters, announcing that ‘unfortunately’ the concepts of Adam and Eve as the literal first couple and the ancestors of all humans simply ‘do not fit the evidence’.” And
Collins hasn’t restricted himself to just the printed word, he’s been
saying things like this all over the country and around the
world. For example in a recent address that he
gave at Pepperdine University he said this;
“There’s no way you can develop this level a variation
between us from one or two ancestors.” During an interview that he did on NPR national public radio, he
reiterated those claims, as did another BioLogos fellow Dennis Venema and he
said this; “You would have to postulate that there’s
been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate
that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time.
Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence.” Now
we’re going to examine that claim in the next segment. But you know BioLogos has basically thrown down the
gauntlet here, and because of their status, and Collin status for example, theistic
evolution seems to have …I mean it used to be kind of a
dismal place in the rear as far as origin concepts from Christians,
but it’s perhaps in the forefront now above what many
Christians are accepting about Genesis. Of course not everybody’s been
convinced by the the strength of their arguments, in
that same NPR piece that you quoted Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a pretty heavy hitter, said; “The moment
you say we have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect to
the word world you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy nor the respect of
the world”. Mohler and others like him of course,
they’re willing to stand in the face of these challenges against
the plain reading of scripture, and I think that’s because Dr Mohler knows a lot more than the average person, about the relationship
between science and faith. And he’s certainly right
about the lack of respect that Christians receive when they
when they try to mix evolution with Christianity. You can actually see the contempt coming
from a arch atheist Richard Dawkins in this quote, he says; “Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic wasn’t it? Symbolic? So in order to impress himself
Jesus had himself tortured and executed in vicarious punishment for a symbolic
sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as
viciously unpleasant.” Yeah Dawkins doesn’t really
pull any punches there. He’s also
said things like this; “I think the evangelical Christians
have really sort of got it right in a way in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas
the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution. I think
they’re deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it
right in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and
Christianity…” Well exactly…Dawkins gets it! Now Mohler is right. We don’t see
skeptics showing respect for compromise. And next up we’re
going to actually take Biologos’ challenge here, that we’re going to mutate ourselves out of existence. We’ll look at the genetics. We’ll
look at that and we’ll look at what science is showing and see if they’re a challenge can
stand up to close scientific scrutiny. We’ll be
back. Is the human genome full of parasites? This might sound like
a ridiculous question but some biologists claim that it is. The
human genome project revealed that a large proportion of human DNA is
composed of transposable elements. These DNA segments copy themselves and
move around the genome. Some scientists have claimed they serve no function and have dismissed them as parasitic DNA. Evolutionists even claim that
similarities with chimps in the supposedly useless bits prove evolution. But new research shows
they have functions. One study revealed that transposable
elements activate during embryo development in mice to control gene expression. Another study
showed that these elements concentrate in gene dense regions to control gene expression. They are not
randomly spread throughout the genome as previously thought, so the human
genome isn’t full of parasites after all but it’s full of sophisticated ways to
control gene expression. To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website, creation.com So our subject today is how theistic
evolution affects Christianity. Now as mentioned
one of the arguments from BioLogos is that there hasn’t been enough time to
accumulate the mutations to create the amount of genetic
variation found amongst people today if we came from Adam
and Eve in the biblical time frame. That’s why they
argue against what the Bible plainly says. However this assumes that Adam and Eve had no genetic variation,
no heterozygosity, to start with. Which is ridiculous! We are just going to assume that’s not true. All
sexually reproducing organisms contain their genetic information
in paired form. So each offspring inherits half of its genetic information from its
mother and half from his father. So there’s two genes at any given positioned
coding for particular characteristic. An organism
can be heterozygous, which means at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms, or alleles of this gene. So you can have an allele code for blue eyes, one that
codes for brown eyes. You can have the ‘A’ blood type or the ‘B’ blood type this kind of thing. And sometimes two alleles can have a combined effect, while
at other times only one allele, the dominant one, has any effect on the
organism, while the other doesn’t. So just with
that information there if you start with that concept that if
Adam ann Eve did have variation we can make some conclusions
here. Saying that Adam and Eve had no
variation is like using evolutionary
assumptions to prove evolutionary assumptions. Its really bad argumentation. There’s no
reason to believe that God wouldn’t have started Adam and
Eve off with a huge amount of variability in their DNA to begin with, in the
first place. I mean that would be expected and yet they just blow that out of
the water. And of course later on a factors like programmed variation and genetic mutations could have occured
after the fall and that would have an even greater variation. I mean how much created
diversity could we expect in the first couple? One way of estimating
this is to look at the number of alleles shared amongst world populations and the International HapMap Project is
an organization that aims to develop a haplotype map, hence HapMap, of the human genome which will describe
the common patterns of human genetic variation. Haplotype means a combination of closely
linked DNA sequences on a chromosome that are often inherited together. So for example by comparing haplotypes
of a mother and father with those of their baby for example scientists can determine how new genetic changes might might arise for example. An analysis of
the HapMap data to measure the amount of heterozygosity
within individuals revealed a global average of 4.33 plus or minus .234 times ten to the fifth heterozygous alleles per person. That
is a huge, huge figure. And thus approximately thirty percent
of all HapMap alleles are heterozygous within each person. So if there’s 10,000,000 common variants,
a single individual would be expected to carry upwards of three or four million heterozygous alleles and it could
be expected that Adam had about 10 million or more heterozygous loci and that each of his children had
half that much. Alright so some of these alleles however would have been added to the
population through mutation, and that happens. We
understand mutations of course as creationists. How much genetic diversity is due to
mutation? Well, you can look at some figures
here. With the average modern generation time of thirty years there’ve been only about a hundred and fifty or
perhaps around two hundred generations in all of human history since Adam, since
creation and the flood and Babel. Assuming a conservative modern estimate
of a hundred new mutations per person per generation, that gives us between fifteen to
twenty thousand mutations per person. This is still a huge number when added up across the world
population. Still only a small fraction, less than .01 per cent of heterozygosity is due to mutation. So it’s
disingenuous for BioLogos to claim no evidence for
Adam and Eve for several reasons. You can look up
more information on our website of course, we’ve just chosen one of their objections here. But first their
conclusions are based on evolutionary assumptions. This is their whole thrust. Were evolutionists so that we’re going to
determine what the Bible says because it. But if you just
start with what the Bible says you’re not going to come to their conclusions. You
can’t legitimately claim something to be proven, without testing those assumptions behind
that claim. Because if you do, then it’s just
circular reasoning. Just question begging. If you just reject an alternative theory, creation, out of
hand then it’s just a straw man argument.
And secondly, when you look at the data it actually
fits beautifully with a straight forward biblical model.
You start with a single couple about 6,000 years ago, what that massive
amount of genetic information, you can divvy it up. It’s
Mendelian genetics, it’s not a problem. We should mention here, Rob Carter,
one of our geneticists. His article, just click the link. Have a look at the link on the screen, he’s taken BioLogos’ challenge and there’s the genetic data, the HapMap
data that we’ve been discussing. You know Collins and BioLogos would do
really well to just take the Bible as plainly written and then look at what they’re
going for. For sure. We’ve actually got a a DVD here by a
Dr Carter. It’s called, “Mitochondrial Eve and the
Three Daughters of Noah”. So you can check out Dr Carter’s
article as Richard mentioned but you can also get this DVD which is just
fantastic, he is involved in genetics, he
just does a great presentation showing how from the eight people that
came up the Ark, you could explain all the variability we have today. And you can get this for
thirty percent off, you just go to creation.com and go to the resource area, just punch in the code CMLME3DN and and you can get this DVD for 30% off and give you a ton of information on what we’re
talking about here today. Genesis verse Genesis Verse-by-Verse is a Bible study tool available on CMI’s website designed to help pastors, students and laymen alike study the book of
Genesis like never before. And it’s completely free! Simply look up any verse in Genesis 1-11 or just scroll down the page. The centre column provides links to articles that answer common questions pertaining to that verse and the topics that naturally arise from them. Visit creation.com to use it today. Welcome back, we’re gonna wrap this up with a feedback
that we got. This feedback is called why do Christians want to defend
evolution? Well that’s the title that we’ve applied to it.
Why do Christians want to defend evolution? And here’s what the the person wrote in.
This is Andrew W from Australia. He says “Hi there. Now I
know that you don’t exactly play nice with people like me…”- and then he labels himself as a theistic
evolutionist- “…but I was curious if we could sit down have a little chat
anyway. I’m only 19 years old and I surely
haven’t seen everything that this world has to offer, but I happen to have a keen interest in
genetics and biology, which led to my understanding about
evolution and the logic behind it. Anyway that was just for contextual
information so my question is why am I not accepted by you as a Christian? I believe in Jesus, in heaven and hell
and that God created the world- the only difference is that I believe we
got here differently to you. Most if not all Christian
denominations have accepted evolution and taken it in stride but creationists
seem unable to accept the concept but (from your Q&A section anyway)…”-
he says- “… seems like you admit most basic concepts that build up to the
topic of evolution but you just have an aversion to that
particular word. I mean it’s not in the Bible so it’s against
your belief, but motorcars, telephones and gravity weren’t mentioned either (to my knowledge).”-
he has in brackets little bit of sarcasm there- “So why the hatred? As the great Charlie Chaplin said; ‘In the
seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written “The kingdom of God is within man. Not one man or a group of man but in all men.” So that’s the feedback.
Dr Don Batten responded and earlier when he said theistic
evolutionists or ‘evil- lutionists’ … Don respondes and said ‘Thanks for making contact’ -‘firstly I don’t know a
speaker within CMI that calls evolutionists evil
lutionists’- although he said he had heard somebody
that said something like. He said you know “I too have a
keen interest in genetics and biology”… because Dr Batten is a its biologist who has got
a PHD which led to his
understanding of evolution and the lack of logic behind it. Here
this emphasizes again, here you’ve got a PHD and the fellow who’s studying science as well they are looking at the same facts but Don can see, because the interpretations… …many of our scientists
started off as evolutionists and it’s through examining the data
that they changed their minds, its not being blind to it. Now one of the things that
Andrew brought up is that we don’t accept him. We often see
this kind emotive language when people are responding to our ministry or one or
videos. But we need to emphasize, this is a brother in Christ. If he’s professed Christ as his Savior that’s
the definition of a Christian. and we’re accepting of Christians.
Absolutely you’re not gonna find that on creation.com where we’re not accepting…
there’s about 10,000 articles there, have a look at all of them. That’s not what we’re saying. What we’re saying is that it’s inconsistent to take this position. And we believe
that of course and that’s what we’re going to defend. But it’s it’s not really… we’ve had this
happen a couple times and its kind of disingenuous to accuse us of
something we’re not doing. So we just want to make that point to
Andrew and to anyone else out there that’s doing this. Want a free copy of Creation magazine? A digital copy. Just go to creation.com punch in the coupon code creation.com/free-mag and you can get some more information. See you next time…

If God used evolution then he's not a God I would serve because his book would be full of lies….This idea of old earth plus God is not scriptural.

It is amazing how powerful spiritual blindness is,,,I have heard atheists, including Dawkins say,,,that intelligent design is impossible,,,and in the next breath, he says we could have been seeded by aliens,,,,So it is impossible for God to have done it,,,but Aliens,,,sure, no problem…Absolutely contradictory and not logical at all…

Why do creationist accept that lies are being taught to children in public schools? How can the schools get away with teaching evolution as fact?

Great video!
Some theistic evolutionuts have more faith in the silly theory of evolution than in the Bible. There is no evidence that would prove that fish magically evolved into a prince but "by faith" evos will believe it happened.

I've seen "Evil-utionist" on another ministry's website, and other terms were used on other sites as well. It's very off putting (it certainly doesn't invite the ear of the skeptic), and when I got interested and involved in this issue, it's exactly what kept me listening to CMI. They used no tawdry demonizing language like that. CMI shows love and respect to even the super-charged atheists; as Christians, that is how our hearts should be to start with. (:

2 Peter 3 makes it clear that the flood was real, and its mass denial (Evolutionary theory) is a sign of the end times.  It is unreasonable to beleive in both the flood and evolution.

Not only will someone not go to Hell if they believe in Evolution but claiming a Theistic Evolutionist will go to Hell will actually put the other Christian in Hell if they don't repent. Think about it, if someone makes Salvation about something other than Jesus' sacrifice then that is against the very definition of Christian doctrine. Disbelief in Evolution does not they are saved.

I don't believe in Evolution but it is blasphemy to claim one's believe or disbelief in Evolution determines salvation. I would call Theistic Evolutionists lost and misguided with lack of study but someone who says an Evolutionist will go to Hell just for believing in Evolution will go to Hell themselves if they don't repent.

Evolution is not a salvation issue but it is important.

I agree that it is inconsistent.

Thank you for your presentation on Theistic Evolution v the literal account in Genesis. In the feedback section at the end, a letter was read from a theistic evolutionist named Andrew W of Australia. He asked why he was not accepted by creationists as a Christian. I think the answer to this lies in identifying and separating out two things.  It is not the person that creationists reject, but rather the theistic evolution that they reject. Creationists love and accept the person, but reject the error.  This is the principal that Jesus operates under. He loves the sinner, but He rejects the sin or error.
Gina Taggart, North Canterbury, New Zealand

The "death before sin" argument is bad logic.  Romans 5 isn't talking about a physical death, but a spiritual death so it doesn't challenge theistic evolution in any way.  Lets suppose that it des mean physical death though.  So if Adam didn't sin, then no human being or animal would have ever died?  There is 7 billion people in the world currently and that's only with the past four or five generations still alive.  Imagine how overcrowded the world would be if everything just lived.  It would be unsustainable.

Also not all Christians accept that we are born sinners.  That is Calvinism and quite frankly isn't supported by scripture. How can an infant that is unable to do anything at all be called a sinner when sin is an action of disobedience? 

Whether or not Adam existed is irrelevant to our current situation in regards to sin.  Sin still exists regardless of Adams existence.

The overwhelming consensus among people with credentials is that evolution is real and that the earth is very very old.  So these two guys are telling us to disregard what people with credibility have to say and believe them.  This just seems very sad.  Either these guys are getting rich selling something or else they are trying to preserve a very fragile world view.  Both ways, its sad what they are doing.

Theistic evolution is dead on arrival. Darwinism was falsified long ago on the very lack of fossil evidence he feared might be the case. There is no scientific explanation of how flowering plants emerged from non flowering plants and no transitional species in the fossil record. Ditto for bees that arise at the same time…because they are interdependent. Evolution has no explanation for this an the fact that it happens suddenly kills Darwin's gradualism. To try to appease science when it cannot even verify its is a bad sign for Christianity, very bad.

Isn't Christians supposed to use their God given reason to find out about creation? To deny evolution is like denying that the Earth is round.

We're also pigs, and Kangaroo. Yeast also shares many genetic markers with humans. I'm YEC but these are also relations genetic wise.

Theistic Evolutionist believe in both the Visible and
Invisible realties.  This is not crazy
because this is true. The Visible world which science comprehends is the
Natural World. The Invisible is the Super Natural World. The Modern god science
can’t comprehend what it can’t see. Atoms are not an invisible reality because
of the fact that we use microscopes to see them. Seeing is believing. That’s
science. Believing is seeing. That’s faith. How do we use science to understand
the invisible realm/reality? How do we use science to understand the Super
Natural? These are questions we must ask ourselves as believers in the divine
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yes I said it. That’s right. They say you can’t
mix Religion and Science together well they are wrong!

The Shroud of Turin is both Religion & Science together
on the sacred cloth. It is visible evidence that has been studied
scientifically. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1) Now our father in Heaven is not pleased when we
look for signs and wonders for faith however our King understands the desire of
witnessing something not of this world but of the Super Natural. Like I said
this is a class for believers only. This is religion, science, & philosophy
in the same class. This is what we call ultimate reality.

Psychosis 2/Visions –
the faculty or state of being able to see a supernatural reality.

In this class there is only one thing
you have to understand. Like if you’re wondering why atheist will fail is
because of this reality. The reality that there truly is a visible reality
& invisible reality. The Natural World is the visible reality & the Super
Natural World is the invisible reality. 

The Supernatural is a realm we don't fully understand. Or
should I say, the Supernatural is a reality science can't comprehend. To
dismiss Supernatural occurrences or experiences as false reality is complete
ignorance to me. Why? Well according to the Scriptures, it talks about the
Visible and Invisible. Those are two different realities. The Modern god science
can kiss my ass. For I know that the Lord is great,
and that our Lord is above all gods. Psalm 135:5 Science can't comprehend the
Invisible reality it seems. It only gives a description of the Physical,
Visible, Natural World. Science can't comprehend what it can't see. That my
friends is its greatest weakness. Magic is science we don't understand. Until
then its a Mystery…

“Imagination is more
important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever
will be to know and understand.” – Albert Einstein

Science knowledge is limited.
I believe that’s what Einstein meant. Einstein’s ideas weren’t relevant
according to scientific theories at his time. Of course he was experiencing a
level of psychosis. There are two, count them two different kinds of Psychosis.

Psychosis 1 Hallucinations

Psychosis 2 Visions/Telepathy

Wonderful. God bless you guys and your ministry. I am Catholic and unfortunately many Catholic Universities have endorsed the lie of "theistic evolution". Thankfully we have The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation: http://kolbecenter.org

This says it all:

2 Thessalonians 2 (RSVCE)

9 The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, 12 so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

21 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Power Rangers Mystic Force – Desert Unmorphed Fight | Episode 19 “Dark Wish”
Articles
38
Power Rangers Mystic Force – Desert Unmorphed Fight | Episode 19 “Dark Wish”

(metal sheering) Why have you come here, humans? That’s none of your business. (metal sheering) Let me handle this one. Hi, the name’s Xander. We just flew into this dimension on a dragon and we’re looking for the tribunal of magic. Tribunal of magic? [Xander] Yeah. Then you’re headed in …

Take This – Cyanide & Happiness Shorts
Articles
100
Take This – Cyanide & Happiness Shorts

-Take this, my son. For it is my body. -Thank you, Jesus. -And take this. For it is my blood. -Yes, Jesus. -Take this, my son. For it is my hair. -Uhhhhhhhhh… Okay, Jesus. -And this is my head! -Jesus. It’s ready. -It’s perfect! -Oh shit! Here they come! (muffled …

High Noon – Cyanide & Happiness Shorts
Articles
100
High Noon – Cyanide & Happiness Shorts

Finally! I- I found it! The lost treasure is mine! I believe I’ll be taking that loot, old-timer. No way! I found it! It’s mine! I’m afraid I’m gonna have to… insist. I don’t think so, hombre. I believe I will be taking that bounty. Now hold it right there! …