Is Evolution Anti-Christian? | Interview on  

You have to stick with the Bible. Science is whimsical and requires more faith than I can muster.

@Kenneth Then you need courses in science and courses in other views of how the Bible has been interpreted over the years Your interpretation could easily be wrong.. Much of science was started by believers in God. It is not an either/or dilemma. It is understanding the Bible better in its context and understanding the science better for it it offers. Sadly there are few that attempt to understand both and then needlessly pit one against the other.

@knightday1973 The Bible is true. Most of modern science is fiction.

​@@knightday1973 🎯🎯🎯

Thanks! Would love if they put the time intervals per topic being discussed

Thank you!

These people are nuts. They can talk forever without saying a thing, and when they finally get to their point, it's nonsense.

@@mrfarts5176which part was nonsense ? And which parts were correct? Would love to hear answers from an expert

@@justicehiggins2963 pretty much all of it.

yeah he is one of the best apologists out there I agree and this by itself is a good argument against the christian god.

Yeah... incredible to think the other apologists are even worse than low bar bill

@@midlander4 every comment that I have seen from you has not engaged any of the evidence presented, but consists only of insults. Do you actually have anything of substance to say, my friend? There are plenty of apologists like myself who would love to hear what you have to say about the evidence that has been presented. But I doubt that you have the intellectual integrity to do so, based on the comments I have seen thus far.

@josephthomas2226 great performance. But your mute invisible sociopathic sky daddy clearly isn't giving you the right tools to tell me why I'm wrong.

Is this the same mind that cares who we sleep with?

So we should not care who sleeps who

Yeah, once it was a problem of volcanoes and lightning. Guess what happened to those gaps in our knowledge! 🤭

@@jeffphelps1355 You should definitely care who you are sleeping with. And i should care if anyone is sleeping with you without consent. Do you think your god cares about consent?

@@tomyossarian7681 so your claiming science will discover our origin. how? Time machine ?

I am afraid the catholic church was way ahead on this one

Not r*ping children, and not protecting and enabling the r*pists is also anti-Christian.

There is no evidence for evolution. The Bible is true.

The Catholic Church will co-sign almost anything. There is no “overwhelming evidence” for the origin of species. There’s more evidence to disprove it but it’s become scientific dogma.

A lot of phony Catholics accept evolution but it is not compatible with the actual teachings of the magisterium or with the patristic consensus. If you disagree with this, you probably lack understanding.

Nope

@@seanleigh Sure it would. If evolution is true (which it happens to be), then it is a part of Yahweh's creation, right....?

@@Steelmage99 It's not impossible for the truth to be anti-christian. It would however be impossible for Christianity to be anti-truth if itself was true, no?

@@seanleigh "It would however be impossible for Christianity to be anti-truth if itself was true, no?" No, that is incorrect.

@@Steelmage99 How can something claim to be Truth, then claim a fact isn't Truth?

Anti-human as a philosophy.

You're calling the most well substantiated scientific theory there is anti-science?

@@Jewonastick You defending any moral system based on evolution?

@@CJFCarlsson When or where did I bring up anything about morality?

@@Jewonastick Evolution favours certain races, right or wrong?

He leans heavily towards the Intelligent Design "theory".

Reptiles and birds aren't species, they are taxonomic clades. Then there is the evidence in phylogeny confirming birds evolving from reptiles, through dinosaurs, into modern aves. Also we have literally seen speciation (one species producing another) occur 1st hand. Both in the field and lab, going back practically a century. Someone has been lying to you to keep you ignorant.

He believes in billions of years. Not good.

@@ramoth777 lol It is simple to demonstrate that the universe is many billions of years old. There are stars that are 12 billion light years away, for instance. That means that the light from that star we see on earth began its journey to us 12 billion years sgo.

It’s not though. I’m with IP on this

​@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns It most certainly is. Scripture teaches that death came into the world through human sin (Romans 5:12). The supposed evolutionary process, on the other hand, necessarily requires unfit organisms to die in order for life to speciate into various distinct groups adapted to their respective environments. In other words, under evolution, death cannot be the consequence of human sin because hominids (much less humans) did not exist as a distinct organism while countless other prehistoric species lived and died. Not to mention that it credits death, chance, and accident as the cause for the variety of species, and not an intelligent creator. Moreover, when asked by John Fordyce whether theistic evolution was compatible with his theories, Charles Darwin denied that evolution had anything to do with theism, and wholly repudiated the Bible and Jesus as the Son of God. The field of evolutionary biology is predicated upon an unscientific _a priori_ rejection of theism, and theistic evolutionists serve, if you will excuse my bluntness, as useful idiots to that end.

@@ErikNilsen1337ou are simply wrong in your interpretation of scripture, and in your understanding of evolutionary theory.

@@bruhmingo Do elaborate.

@@ErikNilsen1337 IP, Craig himself, and many others have engaged this.

And a better person to interview. Perhaps....and this is just a suggestion, mind you......when it comes to evolution one should speak to a biologist, not a religious apologist.

Lack of faith and pride. People think they are smart and they gravitate to groups or cliques that flatter them and tell them they are smart. Evolution is a lie.

Dr Craig, not to put words in his mouth, has said he believes Genesis 1 and 2 are figurative. And as I read Genesis 1, it definitely looks figurative to me too.

And you would be correct. we didn't come from apes, we are apes, human apes, but no ape is a human. Just like dogs are wolfs, and no wolf is a dog.

We do because he didn’t.

@@MartTLS Explain, this is like Yoda speak, even to a Swede.

@@matsjonsson1704 That was in response to the O.P. I’m with you .

JW is a cult. There is no evidence the cosmos is billions of years old. If memory serves me, God created plants on day 3 as the Bible states.

Adaptation is evolution....

@@thehowlingjoker I know, but adaptation to me is used in reference to change over a short period of time compared to evolution which is changed over a long period of time. Until I find a better alternative, that’s how I see it

@@jalengaskin8450 Adaptation is the mechanisms and outcome by which both can occur... The more accurate terms for what you are decribing would be 'micro evolution' and 'macro evolution' as these describe the scale of change, not the means by which the change occurs. Micro being change below the species level (so small changes) and macro being change at or above the species level (like the formation of new species or taxa). Hope this helps you out.

@@thehowlingjoker it does, though I still have some reservations. First, what is exactly is the difference between adaptation and evolution? I imagine that they aren’t the same exact word right?

@@jalengaskin8450 Adaptation is an evolutionary mechanism. It is when alleles in a population are 'guided' through natural selection in response to selective pressures. Basically, it's when a population changes or adapts to in response to an outside influencing factor. That could be something that feeds on them, something they feed on. Stuff like that.

The answer is that an appropriate genre analysis has to be performed for every individual work in the Bible. This is just one of many basic hermeneutical principles that textual critics and scholars consider when interpreting texts. Also, while it can be helpful to consider how a text was interpreted in the past, that does not necessarily determine the correct interpretation.

@@matthewm7590 That is a great example of answering questions, without actually providing answers. This is something I have noticed Craig also often does.

Read John Walton's Lost world series.

@@gavinmcewen5896 wise questions my friend. This type of liberal biblical interpretation used by so called intellectuals (many who earn the title in worldly standards) is what breaks the faith of others. They want Hod and some worldly respect for their views. But a scripture that comes to mind Col 2:8 See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, [i]rather than in accordance with Christ.

I figured you would be able to infer the answers to your questions from my response but I’m happy to spell it out for you. A) If taken completely literally, Genesis will not provide an accurate description of the creation event. That’s the point of the genre analysis. B) The Bible is not just a collection of fanciful stories. It is a collection creation accounts, apocalyptic literature, Hebrew poetry, moral and societal law, and historical biography. This is not just the opinion of Christians but also scholars broadly. C) Nobody “decides” what’s true and what’s not. That’s not how historical textual evaluation works. Instead, scholars examine the texts and the context they were written in (such as purpose, similarity to other works, language, prose, etc.) to determine how best to interpret the work.

God put His foot on the gas pedal.

Right, but the concept of a unicorn is very different from the concept of a maximally great being. A maximally great being would be one that exists necessarily. But there's nothing about a unicorn that, from it's very nature, would imply necessary existence. - RF Admin

@@ReasonableFaithOrg I am a Christian myself, but the Ontological Argument has already been ridiculed by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm's. Even Thomas Aquinas has rejected the argument in its original form. Theologians have done their best to resurrect it, including Alvin Plantinga, but I wouldn't use it in a discussion with an atheist or a sceptic.

@@hansweichselbaum2534 First, it should be noted that Gaunilo and Aquinas were responding to an earlier version of the argument, many of the objections to which are not relevant to Plantinga's formulation. Second, why think that their objections, even if relevant to Plantinga's version, are successful? Which objections do you find to be decisive? Third, it would, of course, be fallacious to say that simply because the argument is not very persuasive in an evangelistic context that therefore it's not a sound argument. - RF Admin

@@ReasonableFaithOrg I am a scientist and a philosopher of science, and I leave it for the theologians to fight over these arguments for God's existence. I only responded to the speaker's argument "If God's existence is even logically possible, then it follows logically that God must exist". I find this very unconvincing. Secondly, a discussion over evolution and religion should include a science expert, preferably in the field of evolution, not just a Christian apologist. A discussion with, for example, Jerry Coyne (an atheist) or Francis Collins (a Christian) would be interesting. I remember a discussion of William Lane Graig with Robert Barron, a couple of years back. My impression was that William L Craig was more on the side of Intelligent Design, whereas Barron fully accepted the process of evolution.

Objective moral values are moral values (generosity, selflessness, etc.) that exist independent of what people (subjects) think about them. What you said, "objective truths about morality" I think implies something similar. To have objective truths about morality, one assumes that morality is objective, but not necessarily. You could state an objective truth about a subjective opinion (i.e. John likes ice cream) but those subjective opinions are not objective (ice cream is not "good" independent of the beliefs of those who eat it). Because of that "objective moral values" is a much stronger term because it removes any ambiguity about specifically the moral values themselves.

@@cmiddleton9872 I agree with most of your points. But it seems music and ice cream can still be objectively good depending on what standards you use to measure goodness. It's one thing to say that some kind of ice cream is good because it's a highly nutritious food that helps you stay healthy. It's another thing to enjoy it. I wish Dr. Craig would says "objective truths about morality" instead of "objective moral values" because "values" is vague. We know we shouldn't toture infants for fun. But that truth may not matter to a sociopath. He can still agree that there are objective truths about morality, even if they don't matter to him.

😂

haha 🤣🤣🤣

😂😂😂

Dr. Craig regarding the use of genealogies: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-genealogies-of-genesis-1-11. - RF Admin

@@ReasonableFaithOrg have read the link to Dr. Craig's reply to this, and thank you for being gracious in doing so. The argument is still lacking. It seems to compare with the other ancient civilizations outside of the Bible, and their genealogies, and somewhat concludes the unlikeliness of their genealogies and the Bible's genealogies, and places a "mytho history" label when dealing with the discrepancies of the ancient genealogies. Although i do disagree with Ken Ham on a few areas regarding biblical creation, he does dispute any objections somewhat rationally in regards to the biblical genealogies. My comments are not coming from a young Earth creationist, my view of the Earth does lean more towards an Earth billions of years old; my objection is that the biblical genealogies cannot be denied. Again, saw nowhere in the link where Dr. Craig views the genealogies to be true; but the link does say that the genealogies cannot be taken literally. Which raises the question, does Dr. Craig view the Bible as inerrant, or not? Apparently, it seems he doesn't think the Bible is inerrant, at least when it concerns the biblical genealogies

@@fernandoformeloza4107 Dr. Craig does affirm biblical inerrancy. See this video, for example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Lrt55kckBdY.htmlsi=Sf9934naAVDj8bmh. Regarding the genealogies, he would say that since they are not meant to be taken as precise records, then to take them literally would be a mistake in interpretation, just as it would be a mistake to interpret poetry or apocalyptic imagery as such. It doesn't undermine inerrancy to say that certain passages are not mean to be taken literally. It just means that God can relate truth figuratively as well as literally. Jesus did precisely this - relate truth figuratively - when stating "I am the vine," "I am the door," and "I am the way, the truth, and the life". - RF Admin

​​​@@ReasonableFaithOrg thanks again for the second link. Not much substance in the video, and i think i've seen it a while back. Was wondering when you would get to the allegories, and the poetic nature contained in the Bible, as well as other types of imagery, parables, and others. And thanks for clarifying that Dr. Craig does indeed believe the Bible to be inerrant, this was helpful in relaying to you my deeper concerns for why the Genesis 1 account should be taken literally. These are pieced in 4 arguments, and may take a few separate comments because of length, so please bare with me. The first argument has to do with the writing style of Moses. Now when treating all things in the Bible that is not to be taken literally, one must consider the writer of the passage in question, or the originator of the saying. No doubt some writers, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, were quite allegorical. Solomon, in writing the Song of Songs, was very imaged based; maybe too imagined based if you ask me. In the book of Jonah, when Jonah writes of his experience in the fish, it could have been thought of as poetic in nature, until Jesus remark of Jonah gives the conclusion of a literal reading of Jonah going in and out of deaths door. When we come to Moses, however, we come to a very different kind of writing style. This reminds me of when a politician is before the public and is asked a question he doesn't want to answer. His response is anything but the appropriate answer, being careful not to say anything that is unpopular. Moses writing style is the opposite of that. His approach is down to earth in prose, straight forward and no nonsense, as basic and as clear as possible. And his style doesn't change in all of the books he written. Exodus 18:13-16 gives us a clue as to why he choose this way of writing. It says that he ministered to the people from morning to evening, speaking to them the things of God. Now considering his advanced age (aka can't teach a dog new tricks) and the amount of people he interacted with, it's no surprise that he would speak in such a way that was clear, concise, and to the point. And the same could be said with his writings as well. Using poetry or vague imagery would serve to only leave unanswered questions in the minds of the people Moses wanted to satisfy, or pacify, in the most efficient way possible. All of his writings have the impression of these things in mind when writing. It looks as though he stuck to a writing style he believed works. Which is why it seems so out of character for one to suggest that Moses, in writing the first few chapters of Genesis, would abandon his modis operandi, and throw figurative poetry all over the place. Moses, when it comes to his written works, is not a poet in any stretch of the imagination. (Continued)

​​​@@ReasonableFaithOrg Which brings me to the second argument, curiosity of the unknown. Now it concerned me when in the first link, when they mentioned something called "mytho history", and grouped and compared the Bible's genealogies with other ancient genealogies, as if to say that we can determine whether biblical lineage is true from what we see also in non-biblical lineage. It reminds me when the new atheists tried to group the God of the Bible with the thousands of other gods and say that they all don't make a difference. No, i would object to that. In dabbling with the study of mythologies, i have gathered that nearly all, if not all, historical myths have this in common; they all have some sort of creation story. In particular, the writer of Genesis, Moses, was in the land of Egypt negotiating the freedom of the Hebrews from slavery. The enslaved Jews were raised to know the Egyptian gods, and their version of the creation of all things. In saying this, the question would arise as to why God, in setting free the descendants of Abraham from slavery, would trade their view of a fanciful Egyptian creation story with that of another fanciful creation story from Moses? What is the logical reason why God would add to the list of mythical creation stories? Now consider this. Place yourself in the very shoes of Moses. Now God Himself is unobstructed in speaking with you about how everything started. What would you write down? Would you write down a story that kinda resembles everyone else's creation story, just to be with the crowd? Would you hold on to your preconceived notions of how everything started? Wouldn't you be just a little bit curious as to what God would have to say about the origin of all things? What we often overlook was that Moses, in writing Genesis, was not alive to be there in the beginning as a first hand eye witness, so he had to rely heavily on what God says about this, because God was there when it all began. In writing Genesis, Moses did the only reasonable thing he could do in his situation; he wrote down exactly what God wanted him to write down. Nothing more, nothing less. It was not Moses making up a story; it was God giving Moses His first hand account of what the beginning was. Jesus even confirms this in Matthew 19:8, when He says "but from the beginning it was not so", validating the words of Genesis as more than just a figure of speech. (Continued tomorrow)

Evolution is a fact. The most accepted theory is natural selection. Even WLC understands this.

I suggest you look up the definition of a theory in science. Evolution is a fact .

You mean like atomic theory, germ theory, etc. You are so confused. Evolution is the name of the observed fact, that you are unique and not a clone, so something happened at conception. The theory is the explanation, do you have a better explanation, because the one we currently have, protects us from dying from most diseases, our current knowledge is the reason, we can combat bacteria and viruses, before they evolve/change. I have higher standards from the education system in 3 world countries, but im guessing you are just the richest of them.

Going by ur logic den THEORY of general relativity is not a FACT

There is no evidence for the conspiracy theory of evolution. Darwinism is pseudoscience.

That's a lot of bullshit

You mean the atheist Jonestown cult or the atheist Satanist cult ?

@@mugsofmirth8101 The key words in your comment are "cult". That's the bit that provides 'belief' and 'truths' to follow. Simply being atheist means nothing more than rejecting the claim a God(s) exist.

Read the Bible. Scientism is a cult. LGBTQ is a cult. Evolution theory is a cult. Old Age Cosmology is a cult. Climate Change is a cult. There are many cults. Christianity, when agreed with the Bible, is not a cult.

Maybe he should convert to Islam. They have more effective policies regarding the so-called "gay community"

@@mugsofmirth8101 If it's anything like the Christian "It's OK to r*pe children, and to protect said rapists and enable them to r*pe more children later" policy, I think it's proof that both religions are too evil to exist.

What facts? Did you mean science fiction? Maybe have faith in God and the Bible and change your religion.

@@Kenneth-ts7bp which bible? Be specific.

@@Kenneth-ts7bp It's so strange that there are so many people that love God and the Bible, but never want to explain further. I wonder if it's just cowardice?

Why is it ridiculous to consult a philosopher regarding a philosophical question?

@@grantstevensbreak evolution is not a philosophical subject, that’s why.

⁠@@imthewallfacer okay, I see the problem. You think WLC was brought in to explain evolution, full stop. That is not why he was brought in; instead, he was invited to explain whether or not evolution and Christianity are compatible, and that is a philosophical question, not one of biology.

@@imthewallfacer Your definition of theories is totally wrong. The so-called "multiverse" for example is unobservable, much less factual. Therefore the multiverse theory is not based on observable facts. Theories are not facts. Sorry, but that's a fact.

@@mugsofmirth8101 good thing it’s called the “many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics” and not the “multiverse theory” then huh?

The questions aren't regarding the mechanics of evolution, they are regarding the theistic implications of evolution, so talking with a theist/philosopher makes sense.

So surely you can point out where the philosopher is wrong? You aren't just making an appeal to authority, right? When you can't attack the argument attack the man. 😮‍💨

@@maggiehyder7075 People in power typically do such things. If your position/values are in line with institutional power, you focus on discrediting non-experts instead of arguments. This is fortunate because you (I.e., the institutions who are on your side) can then just discredit any expert who disagrees by taking away their credentials.

@@maggiehyder7075 To be fair to the OP, asking someone with an MD after their name a question about astrophysics is probably not much more useful than asking a random person off the street, so someone's field of study does make sense when choosing who to interview. But in this case the question is less evolution and more theism, so the credentials of Dr. Craig make sense for questioning about the topic.

I get what you're trying to say, especially around 31:00 WLC is trying to steelman but he capitulates with "it just doesn't make sense to me, horses didn't use to be sponges."

That's a false dichotomy. You can believe that Genesis 1 is figurative at the same time believing Jesus was 100 percent truthful in for instance Matthew 19:4 where he starts off by saying "haven't you read"