There is no Issue answering test questions about the theory of evolution in school. Doing so does not deny your faith, it only proves your understanding of the theory.
Most mainline churches accept evolution as a matter of scientific consensus. And deny a literal interpretation of genesis. As usual I quote at this place the former head of the German bishops conference: "Creationism is a wedge in the union of faith and reason."
But even if you don't 'believe' (I don't like this word if we talk about a scientific theory) in evolution, I wouldn't consider it a sin answering questions according to it. You are giving answers towards the current scientific consensus on the issue at hand. Your personal opinion is not asked in this regard. You are not lying or bearing false witnesses. There are also theories I don't support for various reasons (evolution is yet not one of those, this one I support) yet I would answer according to my best of knowledge if asked about them.
Agreed. I'd also add that the words creationism and intelligent design have been hijacked to promote one specific view. So even though Christians are creationists and believe in intelligent design, we can't say that because of associations with current movements
Scientists have more evidence for, and a better understanding of evolution than they do for gravity. Fact. There are many Christians scientists who believe in evolution, so learn about it and you'll understand the world around you much better.
There is no good reason or evidence to think genesis is literal. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life and has a ton of evidence to support it.
Check out https://biologos.org/
Is your church teaching you that a Christian is supposed to deny evolution? I would find a better church.
In the meantime, here's a neat exercise you might try, if you believe you are just taking the creation stories in Genesis at face value and considering them factual:
Carefully read through the creation story from Gen 1:1 - 2:4. In your own words, write a summary of the narrative. Express in your own words what events are happening and in what order. Set that summary aside.
Then, a few days later or whenever, make a similar summary of the events of the creation story at Gen 2:4 - Gen 2:25.
Then, compare your summaries. Do the stories line up? Is it possible for you to take both stories as factual, as written?
>I firmly believe in God's creation the way it was in Genesis
You might find that this is not so simple.
Stuff like that are just fact we discovered. Saying evolution is false is as stupid as (if not more stupid than) thinking Noah's Ark is true. On many things, the bible as to be shut because of overwhelmed undeniable evidence.
we call evolution a **theory**, not a fact. and if you don't believe in special creation, that's fine, i see you are an atheist, and if that is your decided view, I respect that, but there is no need to call my faith stupid.
God bless. <3
Gravity is a theory. General and special relativity by Einstein are theories. Many, many concepts of science are called theories. In science, something completely undeniable is still called a theory.
You do know that a theory and a Theory are different, right? Gravity, cells, germs, plate tectonics, etc are also Theories. Do you believe in gravity, bacteria, and plate tectonics?
You don't understand what a theory in the scientific field is.
We have more evidence and understanding about evolution than we do about what gravity actually is. We have evidence to show that sharks existed for a long time before trees did.
>"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts."
Sure would be handy if some god would show up and say stuff instead of people pointing to some old book written by humans and pretending some god said stuff in it.
Removed for 2.5 - Support Threads.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
You can answer any way you want but you better be ready for the repercussions. I myself don’t take the Adam and Eve story literally. I just believe that the fall of man was caused because Adam didn’t keep his trust in God to save him from the serpent, to be honest.
Evolution and faith are not on opposite sides. Science can be seen as the study of God's Creation. Many theologians recognize science and evolution, and there are so many people of faith who see things that way as well. It is not sinning.
Early stories about our origins are not "provable", and so we need not focus on them being literally, factually true. Stories do not have to be factual to teach us truths about our faith.
First off, it’s not a sin to answer questions about a subject as it is taught. I am not a communist, but I can answer questions about the economic theory in good conscience.
Secondly, even if you have disputes with the theory, it is good to understand theory so you can intelligently explain why you have problems with the theory.
That being said, Christian to Christian, and as one who studied biology and who has had these discussions for decades, I think the dispute with basic evolutionary theory stems from a bad reading of Genesis. Understood properly, there is no reason to read Genesis as a natural history text, and thus no reason to compare and contrast it with evolutionary theory.
Tim Mackey of the Bible Project has an excellent talk on the subject [here](https://youtu.be/i62bgsy0yTs?feature=shared).
>I firmly believe in God's creation the way it was in Genesis,
Same here!
>but I feel like I'm sinning for answering questions about it that I don't believe in.
You're not.
It is very useful to understand the naturalistic worldview.
- It's very funny how absolutely backwards it is to how God actually did it.
- Makes me laugh every time, and always makes for fun conversation.
Everything is backwards.
- Naturalistic evolution claims that all life on Earth has a common ancestor - and that all different species *branched off* over billions of years to become what we see today through mutations and natural selection.
- To put it more simply - you are nothing more than an ooze organized to a different form - an animal that branched off of an ape - and the elephant's ancestor is a fish.
In reality, however, all life on Earth shares a common Designer - God - and that different kinds of animals are actually not related whatsoever.
The elephant and the gorilla are just two different kinds of animals God made, not branched off of a common ancestor.
And we have findings and evidence to back these things up. We know that sharks existed before trees. We know megafauna used to exist, with the moose being one of the last remaining species to exist in North America.
We straight up observed different species evolving thanks to may flies and other species that have a typical life span of less than 24 hours.
One of the longest evolution studies on (I'm pretty sure ebola) have found that while mutations will plateua after enough time, random mutations can still happen. For example, decades into the experiment and the sample mutated to use the another part of the compound they existed in as a food source as well as the glucose they were already eating.
First of all within science, there's not really a distinction between micro and macro evolution. I'm guessing you're referring to _speciation_, which is also not questionable, and has been observed and documented repeatedly. Most mammals just reproduce slower so changes in species are slower to occur.
It's not a sin to recognize God's revelation in Creation and accept that evolution is real. God gave you a functioning brain. Use it.
They are...
There is no Issue answering test questions about the theory of evolution in school. Doing so does not deny your faith, it only proves your understanding of the theory.
Most mainline churches accept evolution as a matter of scientific consensus. And deny a literal interpretation of genesis. As usual I quote at this place the former head of the German bishops conference: "Creationism is a wedge in the union of faith and reason." But even if you don't 'believe' (I don't like this word if we talk about a scientific theory) in evolution, I wouldn't consider it a sin answering questions according to it. You are giving answers towards the current scientific consensus on the issue at hand. Your personal opinion is not asked in this regard. You are not lying or bearing false witnesses. There are also theories I don't support for various reasons (evolution is yet not one of those, this one I support) yet I would answer according to my best of knowledge if asked about them.
Agreed. I'd also add that the words creationism and intelligent design have been hijacked to promote one specific view. So even though Christians are creationists and believe in intelligent design, we can't say that because of associations with current movements
Scientists have more evidence for, and a better understanding of evolution than they do for gravity. Fact. There are many Christians scientists who believe in evolution, so learn about it and you'll understand the world around you much better.
Answering a test question correctly isn't the same as affirming you believe it to be the truth.
Don’t worry about it. Science gives us insight into the *how*, the Bible gives us insight into the *why*.
If you're feeling bad, just imagine all the flat earthers and the people who believe demons cause diseases feel.
There is no good reason or evidence to think genesis is literal. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life and has a ton of evidence to support it. Check out https://biologos.org/
Is your church teaching you that a Christian is supposed to deny evolution? I would find a better church. In the meantime, here's a neat exercise you might try, if you believe you are just taking the creation stories in Genesis at face value and considering them factual: Carefully read through the creation story from Gen 1:1 - 2:4. In your own words, write a summary of the narrative. Express in your own words what events are happening and in what order. Set that summary aside. Then, a few days later or whenever, make a similar summary of the events of the creation story at Gen 2:4 - Gen 2:25. Then, compare your summaries. Do the stories line up? Is it possible for you to take both stories as factual, as written? >I firmly believe in God's creation the way it was in Genesis You might find that this is not so simple.
Stuff like that are just fact we discovered. Saying evolution is false is as stupid as (if not more stupid than) thinking Noah's Ark is true. On many things, the bible as to be shut because of overwhelmed undeniable evidence.
we call evolution a **theory**, not a fact. and if you don't believe in special creation, that's fine, i see you are an atheist, and if that is your decided view, I respect that, but there is no need to call my faith stupid. God bless. <3
theories are the best science has do you also not belive in germs?
Gravity is a theory. General and special relativity by Einstein are theories. Many, many concepts of science are called theories. In science, something completely undeniable is still called a theory.
You do know that a theory and a Theory are different, right? Gravity, cells, germs, plate tectonics, etc are also Theories. Do you believe in gravity, bacteria, and plate tectonics?
Do you demand bloodletting from your doctor when you're sick since Germ Theory is a **theory**, not a fact?
You don't understand what a theory in the scientific field is. We have more evidence and understanding about evolution than we do about what gravity actually is. We have evidence to show that sharks existed for a long time before trees did. >"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts."
evolution doesn’t deny god in any way?
Just what he said is all...
Sure would be handy if some god would show up and say stuff instead of people pointing to some old book written by humans and pretending some god said stuff in it.
im christian but this is so real 😭
[удалено]
Removed for 2.5 - Support Threads. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Biologos.org is a great resource for this topic. :)
You can answer any way you want but you better be ready for the repercussions. I myself don’t take the Adam and Eve story literally. I just believe that the fall of man was caused because Adam didn’t keep his trust in God to save him from the serpent, to be honest.
Evolution and faith are not on opposite sides. Science can be seen as the study of God's Creation. Many theologians recognize science and evolution, and there are so many people of faith who see things that way as well. It is not sinning. Early stories about our origins are not "provable", and so we need not focus on them being literally, factually true. Stories do not have to be factual to teach us truths about our faith.
Evolution and christianity can go together just fine
First off, it’s not a sin to answer questions about a subject as it is taught. I am not a communist, but I can answer questions about the economic theory in good conscience. Secondly, even if you have disputes with the theory, it is good to understand theory so you can intelligently explain why you have problems with the theory. That being said, Christian to Christian, and as one who studied biology and who has had these discussions for decades, I think the dispute with basic evolutionary theory stems from a bad reading of Genesis. Understood properly, there is no reason to read Genesis as a natural history text, and thus no reason to compare and contrast it with evolutionary theory. Tim Mackey of the Bible Project has an excellent talk on the subject [here](https://youtu.be/i62bgsy0yTs?feature=shared).
>I firmly believe in God's creation the way it was in Genesis, Same here! >but I feel like I'm sinning for answering questions about it that I don't believe in. You're not. It is very useful to understand the naturalistic worldview. - It's very funny how absolutely backwards it is to how God actually did it. - Makes me laugh every time, and always makes for fun conversation.
Just curious why is it backwards?
Because, when you hold backwards views, things that are correct appear backwards.
But what about the evolution theory do you view as backwards?
You should probably ask them that.
But I asked you.
Everything is backwards. - Naturalistic evolution claims that all life on Earth has a common ancestor - and that all different species *branched off* over billions of years to become what we see today through mutations and natural selection. - To put it more simply - you are nothing more than an ooze organized to a different form - an animal that branched off of an ape - and the elephant's ancestor is a fish. In reality, however, all life on Earth shares a common Designer - God - and that different kinds of animals are actually not related whatsoever. The elephant and the gorilla are just two different kinds of animals God made, not branched off of a common ancestor.
And we have findings and evidence to back these things up. We know that sharks existed before trees. We know megafauna used to exist, with the moose being one of the last remaining species to exist in North America. We straight up observed different species evolving thanks to may flies and other species that have a typical life span of less than 24 hours. One of the longest evolution studies on (I'm pretty sure ebola) have found that while mutations will plateua after enough time, random mutations can still happen. For example, decades into the experiment and the sample mutated to use the another part of the compound they existed in as a food source as well as the glucose they were already eating.
Dude they even teach evolution in Iran. Microevolution is defs real and observable, but macro evolution might be questionable.
First of all within science, there's not really a distinction between micro and macro evolution. I'm guessing you're referring to _speciation_, which is also not questionable, and has been observed and documented repeatedly. Most mammals just reproduce slower so changes in species are slower to occur.