All Comments for: Living with the Darwin Fish | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > March

Christianity Today, March, 2007 |

FOOLISH THINGS

Living with the Darwin Fish

Why the discovery of yet another 'missing link' doesn't destroy my faith.

Stan Guthrie | posted 3/12/2007 09:05AM

I've always secretly identified with the apostle Thomas. Upon hearing eyewitness accounts of the Lord's resurrection, Thomas stubbornly said, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 135 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

Show All

Bryan

Posted: March 25, 2007 3:39 PM

It's sad that most of the posts on here seem to be completely reactionary, even though the article is so thoughtful. We put up our defensive sheilds the moment we detect that someone doesn't agree with us. Why do we feel so threatened? My suggestion would be to investigate this for yourself. If you only read authors you know ahead of time you're going to agree with, this investigation will be useless. Read those who believe humans were created in a day and read Christians who believe God used evolution (e.g., Kenneth Miller). And just remember how often the disciples got it wrong, even though they sat at the feet of Jesus every day. Remember how everyone misinterpreted the scriptures about the Messiah and thought he would be a political ruler. It is possible to follow God and sometimes misunderstand how he works in this world. And it is possible that the person doing this is you.

Darren King

Posted: March 23, 2007 3:34 PM

"...Does not everyone believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is completely and utterly inerrant? If there is only truth then animals were not all made from one creature, they were created separately." My friend you are turning the Bible into a historical/scientific textbook rather than a legacy of a people in relationship with their God. In doing so you do injustice to the true intention of Scripture. Please do us a favor and abandon your modernistic, one-size fits all view of the Bible. If you were actually to study historic Christianity- and the role the Bible has played throughout- you would find that your understanding of scripture, which is very close to verbal plenary inspiration, is closer to a historic Muslim understanding of the Koran, than it is to a Christian understanding of the Bible.

Ken Osborn

Posted: March 23, 2007 12:07 PM


My father did was not a church person, mostly because he couldn't find a minister who didn't believe that earth was created in six days. The God that I believe in certainly could have done this but why would this God have gone to some much trouble to make it seem otherwise.

Carlos Rojas H.

Posted: March 23, 2007 10:16 AM


Excellent article! As implied in the text, evolution and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive, because God is beyond ramdoness. Neither are sin entering humanity through one man and, again, evolution. Pretending we can have a exhaustive knowledge of God and his means of creation is very arrogant, be it a theological or a scientific pretension.

Adam	Posted: March 23, 2007 12:34 AM

Historians study the rise and fall of nations, historical trends, and other similar things. Christians believe that the hand of God shapes all of human history. However, Christians don't contest the political, social, and other earthly causes behind human history. We even find them useful for understanding history, while keeping in mind that God underlies it all. So why not look at evolution in a similar way, or at least keep the humble view presented above?

Darryl

Posted: March 22, 2007 1:25 PM

Want to take Gen 1 literally? Then explain how there are plants and days before the sun appears, explain the 2 creation accounts of man, explain how in a world without predation the numbers of insects were kept under control. Also, many people are asking about the absence of fossils. Fossil formation is not a normal process, several conditions have to be just right for bones to fossilize, factor in a few hundred million years of plate shifting and you'll see why they're not readily found. Thankfully, my salvation is not based on which doctrine of creation i subscribe to but rather on the Blood of Christ. Period.

Lisa	Posted: March 22, 2007 12:32 AM

Bravo! It takes a brave Christian to attempt to lead the uneducated into the modern world. People didn't want to find out that the Earth revolves around the sun, either -- but we got over it. We'll get over evolution, too. We've inherited an ancient set of legends from just one of many, many ancient tribes. The God of the Old Testament is a being that existed in the imagination of seekers from long ago. We know more than they did, but God is still here. God is Love, the creative force of the universe, and will always exists outside anyone's understanding. He exists outside of science, and He exists outside of the ancient books of the Bible.

walt	Posted: March 21, 2007 5:22 PM


What about irreducible complexity - Michael Behe? How about Charles Darwin's doubts? It seems to me that God said "Good" when creation took place? "It was much that man was made like God, before. But that God was made like man, much more."

Shawn Brickler

Posted: March 21, 2007 7:37 AM

Typical evolutionary creationists drivel. Man thinks he learns about how life operates so it therefor means he knows how it began. Carbon from the dust of stars billions of years old?? You have to be kidding me.... The DNA "link" is humorous at best. The DNA from a chimp can only produce a chimp, not a a human. The DNA from a frog produces a frog, nothing else. The God of the bible obviously isn't enough for Mr. Guthrie, he must create another god, one who operates within our own thinking, one who is maleable and unknowable in truth. A god who didn't actually create us but allowed us to spring forth isn't the God of the bible. The only "missing link" is in the minds of worldly man, who can't know the God of the bible because he truly doesn't want to. It's much easier to serve a god who we believe only LET us come about and not one who actually created us for a reason and purpose. A Christian calling evolution a "fact" is pathetic.

Reader

Posted: March 21, 2007 7:27 AM


Walking fish exist today. The state of Maryland has been invaded by a foreign fish called the snakhead that walks from water source to water source destroying the natural habitat. So there were walking fish however many years ago and there are walking fish now. I don't call that glaring support for Darwin's theory, not that I'm a steadfast supporter of strict "Creationism."

LtBill

Posted: March 21, 2007 6:29 AM

Evolution is for the disbelievers. God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. Not over billions of years, but in the instant that only "He" is capable of doing. That is why he is GOD. You Thomas's out there you can't believe in the almighty God and still doubt, you either believe 100% or you don't. "A thousand years in [his] sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." This means that God is patient! He can patiently wait for us sinners to come to him and is forgiving and forgetful of the past. Not that He did his work over billions of years. Come on, really you think that God is so insignificant that he would spend billions of years creating this environment for us to live in just to have a meaningful relationship with him. Man, if I had to wait that long just to have a meaningful relationship with someone, woo, then I'd would be in the history books.

Brad	Posted: March 20, 2007 10:34 AM


It would hard to improve on the comments of Andy, Ryder and Sopater. The only thing that I would add is that for those seeking information on this controversial subject, go to http://www.answersingenesis.com. They do and excellent job of scientifically and biblically analyzing such claims and expound on their implications.

Murray

Posted: March 20, 2007 5:40 AM

@Gadfly I understand wht you're saying but disagree with the manner in which you present it. The things that we use everyday (cellphones, computers, cars, electricity etc) are all things that we - as humans - have invented and created. Evolution - as a theory - was not created by us. We did not invent it, or set it into motion we are trying to find out about it... it is a discovery that we are trying to uncover. So it cannot fit into the same realm of "science" that you have placed it - therefore there is no hypocrisy. Another way to see it is that God - by definition - is truth incarnate, and scientists have been known to be wrong before. (See the above article mentioning Piltdown Man) Also, how can simple small mankind comprehend the workings and mind behind that of an all-powerful God? It is impossible. Science will never be able to explain everything, as much as we would want it to. Have scientists figured out where the soul is? What about thoughts? Only God knows.

Lara	Posted: March 20, 2007 4:30 AM


I vehemenently disagree. If we do not take the 7 days of creation literally, then in no other place in the Bible should we take "a day" literally. Also, if we did evolve, then where does the concept of original sin fit it? The concept of morality? Of right and wrong? I suggest skeptics read www.answersingenesis.org

LetUsRatiocinate

Posted: March 19, 2007 11:58 PM

"When I became a Christian, I began looking for real-world evidence to bolster my faith in Christ..." This sentence demonstrates the problem between science and religion. Science looks for real-world evidence to discover facts about the real world. Real-world evidence changes, sometimes slowly, but surely changes assumptions about the real world. Religion begins with an agenda and tries to force-fit real-world data into the agenda's container. If they don't fit the preconstructed container, the data are blithely discarded. When I quit being a christian I became more open to reason and wonder and awe without the religious guilt and fear and baggage. You might say, When I became a skeptic, I began looking for real-world evidence to negate my skepticism. Haven't found any.

dswadley

Posted: March 19, 2007 7:09 PM

I am a very black and white type of person. I do not care to believe science as long as it does not conflict with scripture. Genesis 1:26 says that God made the animals "after their own kind" IN fact all of the versions of the Bible said that. To me there is only one way to understand that. That he made cows have calfs, birds had eggs with other birds in them. God could have brought us to this point in time anyway he would choose to. He is big enough to use evolution or just do act of creation. But when The Word tells us how he did it and gives us insight in how he did it., that will win my opinion everytime. We do not need to twist science to fit scripture nor do we need to twist scripture to fit science. They both take faith which is why I said at the beginning I do not care to believe science as long as it does not conflict with scripture. To me in EVERY way Evolution conflicts

Sue	Posted: March 19, 2007 4:18 PM


This is a great article! I appreciate the author's honesty! He seems to have a genuine desire to find the truth.

David

Posted: March 19, 2007 2:30 PM


I find it troubling that Dr. Collins has found only ONE reason for dna data representing fossils. He uses words like 'in many instances' and 'same way' after using the phrase 'extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion'. Is there really no other conclusion possible or is it just a difficult one for science to swallow?

EMK	Posted: March 19, 2007 2:24 PM

As a scientist who also has a degree in Christian theology, I certainly do not think that religious belief and accepting the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive, and to say that they are is to put a limit on what God can do and how God can work in the world. The people who contributed to the Bible didn't understand God any more completely than we do, and they certainly had less scientific understanding of the world; just because people who lived so long ago were not aware of something like evolution does not make it invalid, just as evolution does not nullify or even threaten the message of Christ or his status as Son of God.

Joe Sanders

Posted: March 19, 2007 2:16 PM

I think that in the great scheme of things, that whether we believe in thiestic evolution or absolute seven day creation we need to be united as one body to show a lost world the love of God as demonstrated in John 3:16. I agree that we should not place God and his created cosmos in a a neat 6000 year box. While I do not believe that God started his process 15 billion years ago, why not eons ago? I also think that the scientific world needs a lot of prayer by us for their souls and for their eyes to be opened by God. This is the only way to surely keep the tides of evolution at bay at least until Christ establishes dominence with physical authority. However, also, we need to demonstrate to a show me the proof world from the great to the small that we as believers are not intellectual fools but able to be in season and out of a season with words ( and actions) that build up and love.

gadfly

Posted: March 19, 2007 11:46 AM

I find it interesting how so many Xians doubt and dog science when it doesn't fit with their very ignorant view of the world, but have no problem praising it and taking it for granted when it suits their needs. You despise the notion of evolution, which has tons of evidence to back it up from MULTIPLE disciplines; yet, you have no problem driving that nice car around or the glory of indoor air conditioning and heating that SCIENCE gave you. Most of you have NO problem seeing that doctor who wields the great tools that medical SCIENCE has bestowed to save your life or make it better by correcting the painful flaws (physical or emotional) that your god gave you to live with. Guess who gave you that cell phone/telephone, microwave, washing machine, and even the PC you're using to read this message? You got it, SCIENCE. This hypocrisy is in bad form and you should be ashamed. After all, would you deny a treatment based on evolutionary science that could save the life of someone you love?

jason

Posted: March 18, 2007 4:51 PM


You are right about there being a common ancestor for most of life on our planet. About 4000 years ago there was a flood where two of every type of animal was saved(notice I did not say species). Every animal on the planet has there origin in those that were saved including mankind!

Mark Santorelli

Posted: March 17, 2007 11:49 AM

I am thoroughly disgusted that a magazine calling itself "A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction" would publish such garbage. To publish an article that is accepting of the fact that God used evolution in His creation is absurdity. What is this magazine convicted of? To publish this type of nonesense is to have a worldview of Christianity and that is anything but the Christianity of saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. It is articles like this that this magazine continues to publish that makes me seriously consider ending my subscription. Whatever happen to publishing a magazine convicted of the truth. As fallen creatures, we cannot be allowed to add to God's Word just because human scientists say or find something that they feel explains away a portion of the literal nature of Scripture. I am right there with Nic Frances's comment in regards to the fossil: "the only thing that can be stated as scientific truth is that it DIED!" This magazine needs to get a grip on the TRUTH!

Ray M

Posted: March 16, 2007 10:23 PM

Belief in creation and the Bible as God's infallible word is fully a matter of faith for me. I've studied evolution often over the years bith before and as a Christian and have concluded that belief in it is also a matter of faith but not as deeply as i have in God's creation. I recently heard a theory that evolution was a process that God allowed and possibly directed but at an aannointed him He stopped the process for man. It was at this point when He breathed life and a soul into what we are now. This made some sense to me. This theory also leds me to think that the flood was God's way of removing all traces of earlier evoluntary lines except for Noah and the animals, fish, birds and insects which He deemed there for our good. But all this will not be shaking my faith in God. I am looking forward to a time in Heaven where all truth about this will be known.

Susan

Posted: March 16, 2007 8:38 PM


I really appreciate the honesty and fairness of this article, as I am also a Doubting Thomas. I continue to search for the truth. "Come let us reason together, says the Lord..."

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment