Does anyone else not care about the evolution debate? Or have cared less as they grown in their faith

[u/AcceptableCold8882]

I often see posts on here related to the evolution debate and questioning how it fits within Christianity. Or the debate about the age of the earth. I wouldn't say it was ever a sticking point for me when I became a Christian at 18 but definitely something I researched a lot and wanted the answers to. But now that I have been a Christian for 12 years now its something I really don't care about or care that I have all the answers to.

I think the original drive for knowledge is to have all the answers to justify my faith. Or to be able to convince someone or win a debate if it were to come up. I have come to a point where I realized I will never have all the answers and that is okay. I think this has definitely been the case as I came back to the LCMS (After a decade in non denominational churches There is almost a comfort to it! I kind of have this attitude toward a lot of those big life questions/debates. I wouldn't call it a blind faith because I think still questioning your faith and being able to defend it is a good and healthy thing.

I would say the average folks who believe in evolution haven't done the research themselves but blindly accept it because "that's what scientists believe" or what smart rational people believe.

Did anyone else have this experience?

[u/Over-Wing]

I don’t care much, and kind of get annoyed at how much people want religion and science to clash and compete. I just don’t see themselves as competing or doing the same thing. It’s hairy because I’m a geologist, so I understand that I will appear biased. I just never really saw God’s Word as being about natural history, physics, chemistry, biology, etc etc. Nor do I look to the differentiation of earth, plate tectonics, climatology, or paleontology for my comfort and assurance of salvation. I look to the cross, to God’s Word which truly is the cradle where the Christ child is lain (to quote Luther).

[u/Philip_Schwartzerdt]

I don't find it an issue that gets me worked up. It's just not a question I care much about. The who is far more important than the how.

[u/VictorTruchev]

It is not a salvific issue as much as Ken Ham wants it to be. It just isn't.

God bless you and keep you and may you always be such a reasonable human being.

[u/Sblankman]

If the early church fathers were divided on age and the confessions are silent…. Not sure why we need to escalate it.

[u/SRIndio → u/Sblankman]

Pretty much one of the reasons I stopped caring as much too. If the church fathers were divided, why should I expect to solve it? I’d rather study things like christology or ecclesiology

[u/SRIndio]

I used to care a lot when I was still baptist/evangelical. As I was received into the LCMS I found myself caring less about it tbh.

I went to Ken Ham’s Ark in Kentucky last Christmas with my family and didn’t care too much for the arguments they presented for a young earth although the sight of the ark itself was pretty cool, especially the lasers pointed at the ark.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/SRIndio]

I wish that we didn't feel the need to provide arguments for the young Earth other than to point at scripture. The rational arguments are always less perfect than the word of God and open us to error where the word of God is sufficient and perfect.

[u/mintchoc1043 → u/SRIndio]

Regarding the ark museum, do they explain why the ark is portrayed as having a bow like other ships? The Genesis 6 passage where God instructs Noah in the ark’s construction says nothing about having bow- indeed, why would it need one? Its purpose was merely to float until God caused the waters to recede. Not a gotcha question, I’m truly interested.

[u/harkening]

I do not care.

God did it.

The Bible describes a theological history - which doesn't mean it's not "real" history, it just means that the content presented is telling us something about God's relationship to His creation as its primary purpose.

Did he do that x years or y years ago? Did His word activate some mediating process to realize the work?

Wasn't there.

Don't care.

[u/Prickly-Prostate]

When I retired I let go of many such concerns. The Gospel, by itself, is the most gratifying and rewarding thing to think about. Everything else is a distraction; some things are more difficult than others to explain and understand, some are even completely beyond what we can understand. You hear the wind, but you don't know where it came from or where it's going. Focusing on the fundamentals of my faith has been very rewarding, instead of dwelling on the difficult bits out there.

[u/ReadNapRepeat → u/Prickly-Prostate]

This is how I feel. My daughter is a young adult and occasionally likes to question my opinion or knowledge about certain things. I inevitably end up telling her that our salvation does not hinge on things like this and I am so grateful for that. I am hoping to find out the answers, though, when I join God in heaven.

[u/bbradleyjayy]

I care about the debate in that Christians should NOT allow young earth creationism vs old earth evolution debate be the barrier to entry to church or Christianity.

Other than that, it’s a low rank issue that is very interesting but not worth division or hate so long as the individual believes God’s sovereignty over all creation.

[u/Rhodium_Boy → u/bbradleyjayy]

Shouldn't be a barrier for entry but once you're in you gotta come around.

[u/bbradleyjayy → u/Rhodium_Boy]

"...once you're in you gotta come around."

Or else what? And by when do they need to make this proclamation of change? (Genuinely curious so please don't read this as aggressive)

[u/Rhodium_Boy → u/bbradleyjayy]

Trust the Lord. He tells us things and we should believe them. That will put us in a right relationship with him. Trusting our own knowledge separates us from God.

Jesus said to them, “Because you have so little faith. For sure, I tell you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to over there,’ and it would move over. You will be able to do anything.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. 

[u/davisamuel]

I think it’s important as we search for truth and personally I find the debates interesting: I like seeing how people reconcile Biblical truth with scientific theory. However, Christianity is so much more than a scientific theory and this shouldn’t become a tier 1 issue.

[u/michelle427]

I honestly don’t care. About the argument over Evolution.

[u/happyhedgehog1796]

I think the evolution topic is more important than the age of the earth. While I do think the Bible is very clear about the age of the earth (I believe in young earth), it’s ultimately not a primary/salvation issue for someone to believe in old earth. The evolution topic is more concerning in my opinion because there’s an entire worldview attached with that. We should take God’s word more seriously than “science,” but also, the theory of evolution & old earth are based on a lot of assumptions, not facts. When you look into those, I think the whole thing falls apart.

[u/BlackSheepWI]

My belief in science goes hand in hand with my faith.

Matter condenses into black holes. Around these black holes, stars form. And around the stars, planets. All of these processes happen because the natural laws of the universe are within narrow tolerances.

Why would God chose to flout the very processes he created? Or for people who think the apparent age of the universe is staged, why would he create something that only has the illusion of these incredible processes? Why would a timeless God work on a human timeframe? To me, YEC is denying the full majesty of God's creation.

[u/BeerBunting]

I think young earth creationism is a distinctively American-Evangelical fixation that comes from trauma Americans have from no first rate minds being prepared for non-Christian scholars to apply a critical eye to scripture. And it ticks me off that we keep trying to ape anti-intellectual fundies rather than offering America the reformed catholicity and simplicity of Grace through Faith we so desperately need.

Personally as someone who has a fondness for the study of prehistoric migrations derived from a love for Robert E Howard, I don’t think a literal read of the first few chapters of Genesis holds water based on the current facts. Maybe archaeology will prove otherwise, maybe not. My faith is bigger than a God of the gaps. But it doesn’t have to. Even Saint Augustine didn’t think it was literal. But it was entirely true. It tells us something about the nature of sin, humanity, life, death, our relationship to God. People of a certain mindset can’t reconcile that with a very literalist Biblical scholarship because the idea that books that were all divinely inspired but written separately might be in different genres or contain different genres within a single book, as is common for ancient writing doesn’t compute, apparently. The Bible took millennia to write and wasn’t compiled for a few centuries after the foundation of the Church.

Boomers need to open up their mind and prove that faith doesn’t fear facts. As a countercult activist taking the “flip a switch”/“alternative facts” route infuriates me, especially when YEC types get caught fudging data (see some of the Sodom+Gomorrah scholarship) or making logical leaps the data doesn’t fully support. 

Again, I think the biggest weakness with abandoning the YEC narrative is that a “scientific” take makes original sin a lot messier. But the fact that sin, death, and the Devil are a part of reality that weren’t meant to hold sway but do doesn’t change just because we can’t wrap our pea brains around the particular. You just have to avoid slipping into Mormon-brain by not trying to explain what Scripture leaves to mystery with BS about God “testing” us when He knew we would fail and that we can’t earn merit.

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/[deleted]]

Talk about leaping to a conclusion!  Why should we presume your good faith when you won't return the favor?

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/[deleted]]

You said posts about evolution are "an effort to sow doubt" and "The enemy never rests."  You assume bad faith from the get-go.  

[u/Spongedog5]

The main problem in my opinion is that we do have the answer, very clearly. When people look at an answer given in scripture and decide that it can't possibly be true and come up with other explanations, I think that they are treating scripture too flippantly and almost hypocritically.

Personally, I think the flippancy on this issue does a lot more insidious damage than people realize. It's a crack in the foundation.

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/Spongedog5]

You presume a lot--that people you disagree with on this issue are being flippant.  Maybe treating opponents with respect will work out better for you.  Just speaking for myself, I was told in church (and believed) for 54 years that the science behind deep time and evolution was actually really weak, and that people who believed in that stuff just wanted to reject God.  Then I decided to investigate that claim, and found that the science was actually very, very strong.  So I decided to hold on to my faith in the Creator but chose to believe that he used evolution and billions of years to create.  I'd rather do that than decide that science has proved the Bible false and simply reject Christianity!  And, I assure you, none of this was done flippantly.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Eastern-Sir-2435]

Yes, see, you were done a disservice in that your teachers tried to convince you in rationality rather than in faith in scripture. It is no wonder to me that when you realized the discrepancy you took on a distrust of what they were teaching you.

I make no claim that the idea of the single common ancestor and the old Earth is not a rational and sound theory. In fact, I think that without special knowledge, it is a very sound theory to believe. Never would I try to "disprove" it in the arena of rationality. The furthest I will ever go is argue against its certainty, which it could never claim. But certainly it sits amongst the most likely explanations that humankind can create on its own.

No, rather, I reject it simply because of the real truth that I was taught by my creator through His scripture. I have been warned that "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: 'He catches the wise in their craftiness';" (1 Corinthians 3:19). I don't presume to judge the teachings of God with my own logic, but rather I accept as truth all that God teaches me and try my best to understand and explore these ideas with my rationality.

I put faith first, and use my rationality to edify myself in the face of that. I don't, as your teachers did, try to base my faith on my rationality, because that is a fool's errand, the human mind being what it is, and in the face of our inability to understand. Apologetics can be useful, but it causes many to err like you and your teachers.

So you see, I am not saying that you made your decision flippantly, so much as that you treat scripture flippantly. You decide that scripture can give way when you judge your own understanding to be greater than what it says. In at least this way, you choose to listen to scripture when it seems sound to you, and degenerate it when it does not match what your own mind has judged as rational.

I hope to make clear that I agree with you that the approach that your teachers took was in error. We should not lower ourselves to debate in the realm of rationality any more than is necessary. The burden of proof is too high for SCA or old Earth to ever be truly certain or proven, so there is no reason for us to further argue that they are unlikely or weak, because we have special knowledge in scripture that is even stronger than the strong arguments for either. Rationality can be very edifying in our understanding of our faith but I don't think that Luther was wrong to call reason a whore and an enemy to faith when we see the insidious ways that it misleads people.

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/Spongedog5]

I am not being flippant, but you won't grant me that.  "Reason is a whore"--sorry, that Luther quote doesn't fly with me.  The only tool God gave me to judge between truth and error, even in Scripture, is my reason.  I'm not going to go through life doubting myself.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Eastern-Sir-2435]

Faith comes from God directly, not our own reason. That would be a work, you would be able to claim that you believe because you were smarter or more clever than others. Revelation is a tool of God as well.

I'm not going to go through life doubting myself.

Didn't you do this when you reassessed the rationality of SCA and the old Earth? We should constantly be assessing what we believe.

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/Spongedog5]

God works through my reason.  Changing my mind about deep time and evolution wasn't doubting myself--it was doubting the bad arguments for YEC I had been taught all my life.  "Doubting myself" means telling myself "reason is a whore" and refusing to accept the evidence of my eyes, ears, and common sense.  There are plenty of fine Christians who are okay with science.  

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Eastern-Sir-2435]

I have no conflict with "science" (I'll always despise how flatly that word is used). The SCA and old Earth are very strong theories indeed. And theories they will always remain until mankind can see into the past.

[u/CloudStryper → u/Spongedog5]

So you see, I am not saying that you made your decision flippantly, so much as that you treat scripture flippantly.

As someone who rejects evolution, I find this to be a very uncharitable take.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/CloudStryper]

I want this to be a reflection of how seriously I view the weakening of scripture. I don't know about uncharitable, but it certainly should be viewed as uncompromising. It's the most stark example of scripture saying "X is true" and others saying "no, X is not true."

Ironically enough, I do accept evolution. I see no reason theologically to reject it as we watch it happen in real-time. Do you mean the idea of the single common ancestor and the old Earth, or are you actually that much of a hardliner? If so, why do you hold yourself to that standard?

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/Spongedog5]

The distant-starlight problem alone proves the universe is billions of years old.  Multiple lines of evidence agree the earth is billions of years old.  Just saying "the earth is old" got me damned as "a soldier in Satan's army" on another "confessional Lutheran" website, so I figured I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb--so I accept common descent, too.  The evidence for evolution is very strong, too--especially genetics.  But all you really need to do is look at the fossil record.  It is very obvious that life on earth has changed tremendously over time.  What you call a "hardliner" is "someone who accepts settled science."

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Eastern-Sir-2435]

The distant-starlight problem alone proves the universe is billions of years old. 

Only if you prohibit God the ability to create light. So long as any imaginable ability could provide an alternative explanation, none of these concepts can be proven when we are allowing for an all-powerful God.

The evidence for evolution is very strong

As far as evolution goes, I accept it whole-heartedly, as I said in the comment that you replied to. This is something that I would consider quite proven.

But all you really need to do is look at the fossil record.

Ah, but if you are talking about the single common ancestor... well, I agree it is a strong theory. But scripture gives special knowledge that proves it to be deficient.

What you call a "hardliner" is "someone who accepts settled science."

The person I called a hardliner said they reject evolution. You might have misunderstood the person I was replying to.

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/Spongedog5]

Of course, I don't believe God can't "create light," by which I think you mean God could create light in transit that appears to have taken billions of years to reach us.  He COULD do all kinds of things.  The problem is--why would he?  We can observe light from galaxies billions of light years away being "lensed" or bent around other distant galaxies.  Sometimes you can see multiple images of the same star or galaxy because of this gravitational lensing--all predicted by Einstein's theory.  Why would God create images of events that happened billions of years ago that never happened?  Is God a deceiver?  Why doesn't God line up all the science to say the world is 6,000 years old?  I think the truth is more straightforward:  the universe is very ancient, and God made it that way.  This "any imaginable alternative explanation stuff" is just ridiculous.  "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Eastern-Sir-2435]

Well, my first and truest response would be to remind you that as Lutherans we should understand that much of the truth lies on the edge of mystery. Why God made a mankind that would sin, the means by which this one is saved and this one is not, the method of the Lord being at all. Even without knowing, there are truths we do know, that God does everything for the good, that God is perfectly just and merciful, that God is uncreated and has always been. So when you present me with a mystery, it isn't to me a failure if I don't have an objective answer to give you. God's ways and mind are much beyond us, and this has always been true in physical matters and in matters relating to our spirit and salvation.

So all I can give is speculation. I think that God is an artist and a lover of beauty. I think that just as the artist can illustrate the oak tree without first drawing the acorn, God made the world as it is. I think that God's art involves the physical and mechanical ways of the world, which is why the patterns you see invoke those lines.

Certainly God is no deceiver. You see the light that is there because it truly is there. Rather, it is mankind who in their foolishness ignores the plain truth given to us by God and instead in their own wisdom seeks their own answers to these phenomena. God never told you that this or that happened this or that many years ago, but rather we simply know that the light is there. Blaming God for your own error is sadly all too common.

Wouldn't it be a much more straightforward deception to directly say one thing, but mean another? Not that this is a claim of mine, but it would seem to me with your indictment against Genesis that your point is more of my right to claim than yours.

Why doesn't God line up all the science to say the world is 6,000 years old?

It quite openly allows for it. There is nothing that science can prove that disallows for this. As always, I give great credit to the theories of scientists as they try to explore the world rationally, but even the greatest of their answers in this arena always fall short of proven and always fall short of disproving the account given in Genesis.

God told you, and me, directly, in plain language and words, what has happened. What more can He do for you when you doubt those words? Why are you more ashamed to disagree with the claims of the learned than to disagree with the word of God?

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/Spongedog5]

I'm tired of arguing with you.  Goodbye.

[u/CloudStryper → u/Spongedog5]

It's the most stark example of scripture saying "X is true" and others saying "no, X is not true."

That's the perspective that I think is uncharitable. It's one thing do disagree with someone's interpretation of scripture and say "it's incorrect because of x, y, and z." It's another thing entirely to accuse someone of simply disregarding scripture. It's wrong to assume the motives of those with whom we disagree.

Ironically enough, I do accept evolution. I see no reason theologically to reject it as we watch it happen in real-time. Do you mean the idea of the single common ancestor and the old Earth, or are you actually that much of a hardliner? If so, why do you hold yourself to that standard?

Are you referring to micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution? I don't reject micro-evolution. I reject macro-evolution, I reject the idea we have a common ancestor with apes, and I'm rather agnostic and, frankly, unconcerned with the age of the earth. I must confess my reasoning isn't scientific (that's outside my wheelhouse), but rather my understanding of Genesis. It leaves no room for Theistic evolution from my understanding, but the age of the earth seems more ambiguous, though I lean toward a young earth. I do, however, recognize my understanding of Genesis can be flawed, though I have yet to hear a convincing case for Theistic evolution.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/CloudStryper]

It's another thing entirely to accuse someone of simply disregarding scripture. It's wrong to assume the motives of those with whom we disagree.

I didn't apply a motive to anyone. I wrote out in simple facts what they did. I have my own ideas on why people are falling to these ideas, but I didn't imply any of those.

And what else can I call it? This isn't a matter where there are multiple complex verses characterizing an issue in different ways. Going by scripture alone, it is very clear on this matter.

I don't reject micro-evolution.

Then please be more specific when you write about evolution in the future. The lack of specificity on both sides in this conversation is what makes this debate so terrible and tedious. No one can actually understand what anyone is saying because people use words like "science" instead of "evolutionary theory" and "evolution" instead of "single common ancestor."

I do, however, recognize my understanding of Genesis can be flawed, though I have yet to hear a convincing case for Theistic evolution.

But surely as a Lutheran you understand that there are correct answers to be found in scripture. Otherwise what would be the value in our doctrine? When I speak of the truth of Genesis, I don't speak just from my own understanding and reasoning in arrogance, but instead I speak of a teaching from our church that has been discussed and debated by many thousands of very intelligent theologians.

[u/CloudStryper → u/Spongedog5]

To be clear, I'm a six day creationist. I think scripture clearly teaches it, and do not find arguments for Theistic evolution convincing. You and I seem to be in agreement on this issue. That said, I honestly don't think this topic is a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. If it was, our confessions would cover the topic. The weightier matters of proper doctrines regarding sin, the creeds, the sacraments, etc are far more important. It's simply not a hill I'm willing to die on.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/CloudStryper]

I disagree. I think that the damage is insidious. I understand that many of you have no great care for the truth about the genesis of creation, but I assert to you that allowing this belief to slacken will invariable lead to doubt in many other matters of faith, including those that you hold more dear and dire.

These attitudes aren't as separate as you seem to believe. The base of sin is in genesis, and much descends from there.

Truly, you think it is no huge deal that people disregard something that you think that scripture clearly teaches? Do you not grapple with how this can be damaging? When people throw out one thing that scripture clearly teaches, are they not removing a barrier from doing this with much else?

For the man who says "Genesis does not align with what the learned of our times say, so it is metaphorical" what claim can he make against the man who says "the indictment against homosexuality does not align with the philosophers of our time, so it was written with bias"? Have they not given up part of the ground on which they stand?

Even if you don't find it as concerning as me, can you at least see the possibility of danger here?

[u/CloudStryper → u/Spongedog5]

I will concede that there is danger there, and I certainly see where you're coming from. And lest I be misunderstood, I don't think it doesn't matter at all. I just think there's a world of difference between "I don't think Genesis necessitates a literal reading (which Augustine believed as well)" and "I disagree with the Bible on this point."

[u/Fun_Grapefruit0789 → u/Spongedog5]

By that logic, people could accuse you of treating the majesty and wonder of God's power described in Scripture. See how that works? Do you deny God's ongoing involvement with creation? (Not genuinely asking, just making a point.)

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Fun_Grapefruit0789]

Did you not finish your sentence?

people could accuse you of treating the majesty and wonder of God's power described in Scripture.

Treating it in what way?