Can you be a Christian and Believe in Evolution?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ย. 2017
- Join us at: www.inspiringphilosophy.org
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
In this video I want to make a case evolution is compatible with Christianity and go over the evidence for one specific theory of evolution called Structuralism.
Sources:
vimeo.com/40337990
Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History - Stephen Jay Gould
Origin of Species, First Edition - Charles Darwin
The Deep Structure of Biology - Edited by Simon Conway Morris
Fitness of the Cosmos for Life - Edited by John Barrow, Simon Conway Morris, Stephan Freeland, Charles Harper
Cycles of Contingency - Edited by Peter Klopfer, Russell D. Gray
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
Life's Solution - Simon Conway Morris
"Humanoids on Other Planets?" American Scientist 1964 - Robert Bieri
• Conversations with Mic...
www.jstor.org/stable/27847837
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Coevolution - Edited by Douglas J. Futuyma, Montgomery Slatkin
At Home in the Universe - Stuart Kauffman
www.nature.com/articles/ng.3198
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
The New World Primates - Martin Moynihan
www.nature.com/articles/418133a
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
how to start an internet fight :
1. write a comment.
2. wait.
@Time Lord i found one that said the bible didnt have a talking snake, but last time i checked, in the story of adam and eve there was a snake that toled eve to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge...
@Time Lord it was in the comments in this video
Gay
Aaron Hamilton
1 year later-
how to start an internet fight : How did work out?
The Bible is Fact,
Science is fact.
evolution is an assumption
choose carefully which two you choose.
You can't believe in both science and evolution.
you can't believe both evolution and Creation.
the only logical explanation is science and the bible.
6000 years is not long enough for a flea to evolve into man.
even including the flood 4500 yrs is even less time.
all creatures were created very similar to the way we see them now. except those that DE'EVOLVED and lost genetic information to become a variation of the original but still the same species. From the first created dog to the last they were still dogs.
from the First created man to the last we're all human.
I came to faith in Jesus Christ as an adult. This means that I had been exposed to secularism and Neo-Darwinian evolution throughout my life. I had no thought of a contradiction in a belief in evolution and a belief in God. The more I studied science and evolution in particular I became convinced that evolution was so highly improbable that it was virtually impossible without a guiding intelligence. I discovered that intelligence in the God of Christianity.
👍
Wait can you say that again in simpler terms please?
I agree. it is absurd to think life arose by chance and time. No evidence or mechanism has ever shown how we get from chemistry to biology.
God refers to the evolution of animals in Genesis, but not man's evolution.
@@johnjeffreys6440 we have to remember though that this was forever ago and it’s possible that not everything was literal, because God made the Bible in a way that people from that time could understand it and more advanced people (us) could understand it, like for example God might’ve not been literal about the Earths creation in 7 days, maybe it’s a metaphor, however maybe it was made in 7 days. Who knows
In my youth I walked away from Christianity due to creationists making it seem like science and religion were at odds. Thank you for making this.
-Lloyd-
What isn’t science?
Wait I’m confused, did God create man is his own image, or did we evolve accidentally from animals. Idk about “religion” but, Scientism *is* at odds with what the Bible says. So-called science makes unprovable claims in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. Someone’s lying. Let god be true and every man a liar.
So you chose the creation over the creator?Bad choice, but I hope you eventually came back..
good point. tons of people seem to think that the only Christianity that exists is the one you read in Jack Chick comics. this is in fact a rather recent, fringe minority of the traditional faith. The bible was not written by fundies. it wasn't compiled and edited and copied and proclaimed and prayed over for millennia by fundies. they just came along about two hundred years ago and tried to claim they were the only ones who knew it (because I guess they thought they were the only ones with true faith and God would protect them from error? or that the rest of us were too unworthy to learn as they had?). it's a real shame. so fundy atheists need a second de-conversion... these conspiracy theories are their new blind dogma. historyforatheists.com
fundamentalism is new, and at best it can only claim to be a spinoff of 19th century protestantism (a movement that traces its roots to 16th century dissidents in europe). that's a far cry from the continuous ancient Christian tradition, the Church that began with the apostles of Jesus. it's not perfect but it has a far stronger claim than some group that is younger than the USA!
@Endtimes Watcher my mistake, I misread your post. apologies. you're saying a person who walks away from Christianity because of the errors of fundamentalism was never a Christian? Only God knows. But I agree that fundamentalism is responsible for turning a lot of people away from the faith. mainly because fundamentalism teaches you to believe that your group is the ONLY WAY and your reading of the bible is THE way. so everything else is false. and once you realize that system is itself false, you become nothing... and you become bitter and since you never learned to properly reason and think critically, you retain that fundamentalist mentality when you become an atheist. hence fundamentalist religious tend to become fundamentalist atheists. it's sad, I agree. most most traditional Christians have no problem with mainstream science. and I'm not talking about liberals who never attend church outside of weddings/funerals and just put "Christian" on a census form but deny all the core teachings. I'm talking about faithful, thoughtful, believers who practice the faith (imperfectly as we all do, but still, they "try" as opposed to just attaching the label in a purely cultural manner).
This should be shared and viewed in all churches. A lot of churches do not equip their members, resulting to deconversions. God bless you and your ministry bro.
Modern atheists and modern fundamentalist Christians: Science and Christianity are incompatible.
Gregor Mendel and all other Christian scientists who built modern civilization: Nope.
Western civilization came from the enlightenment which spawned from Greece philosophy. So you have Christians using Greece ideas and crediting Christianity for it. LOL
Not necessarily incompatible. It's just it's hard to maintain a system of beliefs that's based on blind faith and not question it when the other system you adhere to would say no beliefs should be held sacred and you need to question everything and only come to conclusions based on evidence. To me, the bible seems to be very clear on its opinion that you should believe blindly and not look for evidence as these are the highest in heaven
It promotes blind convictions based not an evidence, something that would never hold up in the field of science
@@kakarot9309 actually the earliest Christians (and many Jews too) used Greek philosophy. they didn't see it as incompatible, only that the revelations of Christ took it a step further. they thought God had given two types of revelation, natural reason to the gentiles (greek philosophy) and the prophets (scripture) to the Jews. but Christ fulfilled both. Paul did it, the author of John's Gospel did it, you find it in Luke, etc. and the early Church Fathers. the Enlightenment deists and liberals were also using their Christian heritage as well, so who was borrowing from whom? and the conflict thesis is bunk. historyforatheists.com !
@@trevorbrooks7816 for fundamentalists, perhaps, but this idea of "faith" as "fideism" is not what the early Christians meant by it. there is this hollywood vision of Christians as these dirty superstitious, intolerant, violent fools (and presumably their critics as the opposite), but it's a wild distortion, especially the time periods we're talking about (and "bad" according to whom? its not as if their contemporaries were much better, if it all). !
*reads through comments* sigh, Lord have mercy..
I know, right
InspiringPhilosophy
Origen was not a creationnist. He believed in ex nihilo as Plato and all the intellectuals of the time. Christians should believe in evolution as it is proved by science.
Yep : /
@Danny Pipes So we give up the reason to follow those who do not have the education to interpret the biblical texts.
Thou shall not take God's name in vein.
IP saves the day, another win for Christianity.
None of this video focuses on the chief reasons people say Evolution clashes with The Bible. Look up Ussher Chronology and compare that with what archeology and genetics say about the age and genetic history of humanity.
Nope, IP gives more problems to Christianity in this topic, he act as if evolution is a fact & without Atheist assumptions...
@hunter christensen you believe more on IP that the bible?
As the bible say God created man from the dust...
And Eve from Adam...
How can Eve evolve?
If i am Atheist will like IP in this position, but no i am not... i follow the bible, the words of God than the word of IP or a mere man...
Macro evolution is not a fact, IP is lying when he says evolution is a fact... is he a scientist?
Micro evolution is a term for adaptation.
How can i trust a mind of a overgrown organism?
Who evolution gives you logic & consciousness?
@hunter christensen you in God but not more in the bible? Then how do you know what God is telling?
Bible, not direct word of God? Then which one is the direct? Genesis? Not 1st hand? Then what is the 1st hand?
Yes, earth nature, then where is the animal in the picture? As evolution is saying from simple organisms, we become man, but why animal is there man is late, and eve is later.
As you say noy individuals, then where adam come from? How adam came for evolution is adam is individual...
Me, have Atheist view? Do you read your text? Your the one that believes is evolution, & evolutionists dont believe in God (Atheist), and you believe in God but not His words, but you believe in IP...
Are you starting a religion base on IP?
Evidence for macro?
Do you known the Cambrian explosion..?
If Darwin doubt that how can he trust his idea if his brain if from ape only.
Evidence base from IP & Atheist view?
Base from Atheist assumptions..?
The your god is IP & the Atheist, and your religion is evolution.
Im a Christian, i follow Jesus.
@hunter christensen Hello new Christian (former atheist) passing through 👋, dont mean to come across as someone who disagrees with this but based off what you said im a bit curious. How would y’all describe the act of God taking Adam’s rib to make Eve? This is a very specific description so i found trouble trying to find figurative meaning of this part of scripture. I feel if Eve was divinely cloned from Adam, as someone whos new and unconfident in scripture, im confused by the possibility of evolution without contradicting scripture.
I want to point out that a literal reading of Genesis 1 does not indicate that God created most life forms, but he commanded the earth and the sea to bring forth life and they did. This strongly suggests that God set in motion the natural processes of evolution.
That is wisdom right there
It can’t strongly suggest a theory that did not exist at the time.
What about adam and eve's?
@@educhan3909 Clearly Adam and Eve were a Special creation but the exact nature of that creation is not 100% clear, because of the way the Bible uses language. Were they made of dirt, or is this a symbolic way of saying they were chosen from among all the people of the world? You see, Genesis isn't really about the history of the world but the history of God's relationship with the world and with his chosen people, in particular.
@@justinolmstead8086 I can if it's the word of God and not just a human book
I hardly ever comment on videos, but this is a very well-made, thorough, and captivating discussion. As a theistic evolutionist interested in anthropology, this is one of the best videos I’ve seen. Thank you for making this video.
I think we need a good definition of evolution. I like the term i may have coined called assisted evolution *TT 2/4/19. With God doing it anything goes . Things could evolve naturally or given help given the circumstance . In this view it makes no difference.
@GDDM sam tell me what you know about James tours research and refute it
th-cam.com/video/XehO2acZzGo/w-d-xo.html
@GDDM sam ummmmm let me think oh yeah because not one change of kind has ever happened and Evolution has a problem with its arrangement of fossil records, arrangement of mutations as a mechanism to explain genetic variations, ie; new species. There's no explanation for origin of initial parent material, no explanation for the inherent complexity of structure (proton, neutron and electron) and the operating principles of simplest matter, no explanation for emergence of life through random repetition and conversion of inorganic material into bio-organics, no explanation for human personality and mans ability for propositional reasoning, God Consciousness or moral conceptions. It’s a complete myth )
@GDDM sam wow took you 4 swings to come up with nothing 😆 you don’t seem to balanced )
@@truethinker221 A FunFact for the Ages:
Flat-Earth and Evolution-Denial are classified as the exact same THing:
Science-Denial and a Conspiracy-Theory.
So if you though theres 'different Viewpoints' here, youve been wrong.
There is counter-evidence or such.
Flat-EArth-Debunk-Channels, if they wanna take a quick breaak
from debunking Flat-Earth will debunk Evolution-Denial;
yeah, that happens.
As the famous Charles Darwin suspected that the theory of evolution could have had some underlining natural law that have guided the process by a supreme being. If Darwin was still alive and his suspition was shown to him to be true, then he would had been a theist again.
Me an Orthodox: “The Bible is not science book that makes Scientific claims. I take neither position, because….
☦️It’s a Mystery☦️
Lol
I grew up in a Christian household. And when our Pastor suggested that dinosaurs never existed while I was a teen that actually made me logically think and not just blindly believe the words that were told to me. Critical thinking and coming to your own conclusion is key
God exists.
Your pastor didn't know what he was talking about at that time. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?
@@ShallowCreation911 I believe a higher power exists that we call God
@@caleburias5596 I believe a higher power that is outside of our understanding exists, yes
@@caleburias5596 He wasn’t stating that as fact. Merely suggesting that as a possibility. Also I’ve always had a hard time believing that the Earth or even mankind has only been around for like 7,000 years. Which I suppose ties into the whole dinosaurs thing 😂
Knowing your audience, this must have been a difficult video to put together. Not sure I'm convinced of your arguments, but my ears are open. Thanks for sharing. I've no doubt this video represents an enormous amount of time for you. Please keep putting together these thoughtful videos. We need more people doing what you're doing!
@HOTTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD maybe you should change your username if you want people to take your statement in serious manner.
As someone who grew up in an anti-evolution, YEC environment, once I became infatuated with biology and evolution, I faced the same false dichotomy of either belief in God or belief in evolution. Unfortunately I abandoned faith for what I thought was the truth, but thankfully the Holy Spirit guided me back.
Once you started describing the idea of niche construction and the boundaries of the evolutionary process, it clicked for me. Biological niches and convergent evolution have always been my favorite aspect of evolutionary biology, how environmental pressures can make two incredibly disparate and distantly-related animals look and act almost identical is fascinating, and very compelling as a driving force for speciation as opposed to random gene mutation. If everything else in this universe is governed by laws, why should evolution be any different?
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm
If you reject the traditional Christian view of the Fall and believe god created humans with an propensity to do evil, then I suppose you’re right
People don't rise from the dead.
People don't live for 900 years.
People don't turn into salt.
People don't get superpowers from their hair.
Animals don't talk.
There was no global flood.
The bible is basically an ancient comic book. Full of ridiculous fantasy stories and myths which are actually copied from older stories. The only people who believe that are those who were indoctrinated since birth and forced to believe.
@@xaindsleena8090 the “traditional Christian view of the fall” you are likely referring to is a modern interpretation, and only gained prominence in the mid 19th century. You’ve again created a problem that doesn’t exist based on limited knowledge and a complete rejection of any nuance.
@@bruhmingo I'm really curious how Christians reconcile evolution and the bible. I'll copy and paste something I wrote awhile ago on why I think Evolution and Christianity are incompatible. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please feel free to respond to any of the points below:
1) Jesus and Paul talk about Adam as if he was a real person. Why does the bible give precise ages and locations of people who never existed? Why place them in genealogies that contained real people?
2) If the Genesis story was gods attempt to describe real events using language that could easily be understood by people of the time, the choice of metaphors is very poor. Why say god created humans from clay and a rib when he really created them from non humans?
3) Deleted
4) The bibles sharp delineation between humans and animals seems bizarre. If humans evolved from non-humans and Adam was gods choice of the first human, this choice would have been arbitrary in the same way as the age that one might decide when a child becomes an adult. Were Adam's parents soulless animals over whom god had given Adam dominion? If Adam was created in god's image, what does this mean? It can’t refer to any physical or mental features because there is no reason to suppose Adams parents would have lacked these since they were the same species as Adam.
5) The whole concept that a omni-benevolent god would have created humans using a process that required trillions upon trillions of deaths, seems inconceivable
6) I’ve also heard some proponents of theistic evolution claim evolution happened exactly as understood by scientists but god made an exception when he created humans ie he really did create them as described in Genesis. This ignores all the genetic and fossil evidence that strongly suggests humans evolved from non-humans. Besides how can evolution not apply to humans when we have the main ingredients for a species to evolve ? i.e. heritable traits that grant differential reproductive success where such traits can undergo genetic mutations
7) Many Christians believe that the evil and suffering we see in the world today is because creation is broken which is itself the result of human rebellion against god - thus implying that there was a time in history when there wasn't such evil and suffering. In particular, they believe that god never created humans with a dark side to their nature. Instead they believe their nature was corrupted by sin - and this explains why humans have done such great evil throughout history. None of this is consistent with what biologists believe about the evolution of human nature. If evolution is true, it means that we inherited the dark side of our nature (e.g. anger, lust, hatred, greed, jealousy etc) from our non-human ancestors (non-human primate behavioral studies and fossils showing fatal weapon injuries provide strong evidence for this). There was no event that changed human nature.
Other Christians will say that there was no sin before The Fall, not because humans didn’t do things that we would consider sinful today, but because there was no law to break. However the same Christians would also say that humans have a conscience because god wrote his law on our hearts. However the overwhelmingly consensus among evolutionary biologists today is that we inherited our conscience from our nonhuman ancestors. So this would imply god wrote his law on our hearts at a time when this law was not in effect, which makes no sense
I think the main thing that gives Christians pause with evolution is the philosophical implications. Who was the first person with a human soul? Is there a historical Adam and Eve? Can intelligent life evolve again and if so, what does that mean for God's promises?
I’m discovering your channel, and boy I’m glad I did. I gained a lot of insight from this video, as an aspiring paleontologist. I can’t tell you how much I get blasted from evolutionists and people in science class because I’m a Christian. Same goes for the Christian’s at church who disapprove and look down me for loving science and believing in evolution.
You and I don't believe in evolution we accept it as the best explanation for the variety of life on earth.
Evolution and Genesis don't coexist
@@KevinChantal then doesn’t that mean we believe in it? I guess it a definition thing but if you accept something then you would believe in it.
Science is the discovery of God's creation.
Good luck man. Sad to see West is like this. Where I live most religious people simply aren't intrested in paleontology but nearly no one is denying evolution so far only instance of someone being creationist was in one youtube comment. That is it from my experience. Situation in West is alarming imo.
. . . not that the lord really gives a damn whether we believe either said theory, or
mythology. Where the rubber meets the road is that we all regard the gospel truth.
Yeah I'm not sure God cares if we make assumptions so long as they don't lead us to sin. Kudos.
I think it's beneficial for Christians to agree on the issue, especially if rejecting science makes Christianity unattractive to non-believers. Not that we should base our ideas on what will spread our message! But it strikes me as odd that people who claim that the truth will set them free hold themselves captive to a view of the world that opposes what is evidently true. If we claim to be seekers of truth, we must have the intellectual honesty to accept truth when it conflicts with our worldview. If you find yourself thinking that you should have faith in God despite what logic or science says, you don't really have faith that God is true. If you are confident in what you believe, you aren't threatened by rational thinking, because you know it will lead back to God in the end.
"Where the rubber meets the road."
I don't know why but I like that analogy.
Greg Jacques Lucifer's Jizz Gargler insults aren’t arguments
Greg Jacques Lucifer's Jizz Gargler Hostiles Christians do they exist of course but I have done nothing to earn that title but I would likr to have a discussion on why you don’t believe in the Christian God
I no longer feel two polarizing beliefs within myself. You have helped me tremendously with your work. Thank you ❤
A good day for me is when TH-cam announces that Michael has posted a new video. It is my Pleasant food.
The more I listen to the philosophy and the science, the more I see that we are struggling to understand things so far beyond us. Not that we shouldn’t, ...I believe God wants us to, but I also get the feeling that when the Truth is truly understood and revealed, we will bow in awe to the Amazing Creator of it all! And this is just us trying to understand our being here, much less the wonders of the known, and the unknown, Universe!
If one believes God created a man with an infinite series of failures then they seriously underestimate and devalue Gods creativity.
THANK YOU! I actually thought I was a spastic because I live in a small country town with a pentecostal church of about 100 people and it is so hard to not be judged and looked down upon for thinking that evolution makes sence
I hear you, small town, big hell.
Yes I know several pentacostal churches, they judge everyone and everything. Pick another church :)
@@vaughnfoulger291 haha yeah I don't go there anymore. It's crazy how much you realise they twist things once you're going to a good church
Forget the people what does the Bible say?
I hear you. I grew up in a small church. The level of scientific knowledge was about zero. I don't believe in naturalistic evolution but there is plenty for evolution itself. I think God put in the propensity for it but it still comes down to faith to see the overall of evolution as more than accidental coding. The propensity needed to be there in the first place. See Swamidass's book on Adam. It is a nice theory that Adam came after the Denisovans.
Atheists, infinite big bangs doesn't get you out of the first cause problem
First cause is something that makes sense .. to us. And to be fair, it made sense in the world we observed so far. However, with quantum mechanics describing how the world actually works on a low level, with matter only having mass because of stuff constantly warping in and out of existance, with things existing in superstates of all possible possibilities, and with the symbolic cat being alive and dead at the same time - what does making sense mean anymore? Just because something seems illogical to us, doesnt necessarily have to mean it's wrong anymore. The world doesnt make as much sense as we thought it did.
No matter what you believe, at some point something either came from nothing or just always existed. That's the only two options we have available. Neither of them makes sense, but one of them has to be true. This "something" could be a god, but a god is not required in this chain of events. It just adds unnecessary complexity. A typical god of the gaps argument; "you dont know the answer, so god did it!" - the problem with that logic is that.. god himself would have to just always exist or come from nothing. And if god is allowed to use that excuse of "not making sense", why is reality not allowed to do the same? Accepting an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient being popped out of nowhere or just always existed, and then created everything in existance with magic is just an unnecessary assumption, if we could similarly just assume that matter always existed or came from nowhere. That's infinitely more easy to accept.
@@Yamyatos You got the physics wrong a little bit. A) quantum mechanics DOES describe how the world actually works on a low level, with exactly one fundamental exception: gravity. Consequentially, we have absurd ideas about Cold Dark Matter that makes up most of the universe despite never being observed or even being observable (I'm not saying that 'dark matter' as such doesn't exist at all, but it seems absurd on its face that %70 of the universe's matter and energy is un-observable. It makes the math work, so it must be there. But really, it's no more verifiable or falsifiable than any theistic idea. It's about as scientific as string theory). Gravity is poorly understood at the quantum level, but it's mostly explained by relativity (which I don't really understand. I have Einstein's book on my shelf but it's hardly fit for a casual reading).
B) From what I understand, scientists don't literally believe that particle pop into existence and out of existence. These are called "virtual particles," and in a sense they're a mathematical convenience. If they exist, they would better be explained by excitations in the quantum fields, which is more like energy being converted into matter. There's strong evidence of matter being converted into energy. If E = mc^2, it must also be true that m = E/c^2. I would wager that a significant discovery is on the horizon regarding energy being converted to matter.
Of course, this begs the question, where did the energy come from? It seems like it must always have been, if conservation of energy is held to be true. But I don't think that idea will hold to scrutiny, appealing though it may be.
In the end, I think it's absurd to try to find God by studying the natural world, as if you could find William Shakespeare by reading Hamlet. God isn't verifiable or falsifiable by science. There are other ways of discovering truth about God. I think science can't prove God's existence, but if God exists, then science shows us his intelligence, power, and aesthetic supremacy. I'm an artist (I know the physics stuff because my brother is a PhD. researching quantum physics. Take my words with a grain of salt and research it yourself, but I think I'm generally right about this stuff). I can't look around at all the beauty in the world and not be convinced of the existence of a great Artist, something even beyond an artist. Art seeks to imitate nature, using images to portray human experience. But nature imitates God's eternal character. This part is speculative, of course. It's not evidence one way or another. But it does make sense in itself.
@@josephbrandenburg4373
Hi, first and foremost my comment was mainly meant to contradict the idea that things that "dont make sense" (to us) are not real, which is disproven by how reality works.
About the phyiscs i agree with basically everything you just said, but i dont see where my comment contradicts any of it. Maybe i badly formulated something.
Quantum physics explains how the world works on a micro level, relativity explains how the world works on a macro level. Both ideas dont really work in the domain of the other (like you said, mostly gravity making problems). If we could combine both theories the new one would probably count as the theory of everything in physics. That said, i believe quantum physics is way harder to understand than relativity. It's probably really cool to have a family member in that field, so that's nice!
About dark matter, yeah we have never observed it - mostly because whatever it is, does not interact with light. And since it's probable that no, or very little, dark matter exists in our solar system (and we have never really left it), it is not unsurprising that we do not have a sample of dark matter. That said, "it makes the math work" is true, but it also makes the observations work. For example, our current understanding of gravity works absolutely great for basically everything, even on larger scales (properly explains how an objects accelerates to the ground, but also the formation of planets, suns, solar systems, and so on), yet with all the observable mass in an entire galaxy, galaxies simply could not stay together. The orbital velocities of the outer arms of most galaxies are impossibly fast compared to the amount of mass we see there - so they either needed to be slower (which they are not), or there would need to be more mass to account for the gravity holding things together. Some of this unseen mass obviously can be explained by black holed and generally matter we cant see, which accounts for iirc roughly 20% of the mass we expect there to be without seeing it. Everything else is something we are pretty sure is there, but simply cant see (nor probably have ever seen).
As always, our current model of gravity could simply be wrong, but that's hard to imagine for how well it works for basically.. anything and everything.
About B) i cant say a whole lot, but to my understanding virtual particles are sort of fluctuation on quantum levels, causing particles to increase in energy (form a higher level particle) and then go back as if this higher level particle never existed. This process seems to violate the conservation of energy, but was predicted by quantum theory and is seemingly fine. But again, neither of us are physicists so we are bound to write down some false information here and there, so take everything i said with a grain of salt as well. Your brother probably knows about this, so he may be able to explain it to you. Anyways, that said, my comment was mostly meant to show that just because something seems unreasonable to us, doesnt mean it has to be wrong. A lot of things in quantum physics or relativity seem unreasonable or unlogical to our human brains, yet that's how the world works.
I agree that looking for a god, if one exists, in the physical world would only be possible, if said god interacted with the physical world. Anything that happens in and with the physical world, we can potentially measure and thus find evidence of the intervention of a god. I conclude that if a god exists he must not interact with the physical world at all (or in a way we can not measure yet resulting in extremely small influences).
Since i dont believe that anything besides the physical world exists, it would be impossible to differentiate between such a universe and a universe in which no god exists.
I do not say that there is no god, i simply say that using god as an answer to explain things we dont properly understand yet does not justify believing in the existance of a god. A god may exist or may not exist, but according to the evidence currently available to us, believing in the existance of a god is unreasonable. Then again, everybody is free to believe what they want.
Wish you a great day sir!
@@Yamyatos Yeah, I agree with almost all of that. But that sentence right at the end warrents a little response from me:
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe in God. Even if it is unreasonable, you're betting on the wrong horse according to Pascal's wager.
I think that belief in God is self-consistent and consistent with reality. I don't think atheism is, unless you're happy to believe something came from nothing at some point. The Big Bang works well as a beginning. But what caused it? There are problems with scientific theories about life that seem altogether absurd to me. Abiogenesis, for example, can't be explained, and the experiments that supposedly have made progress in this domain use purified chemicals in a man-made lab. Even if they succeeded in creating life that way, it would only prove that intelligent beings can in fact create life. I don't want to belabor this point.
Anyways, if God is rational, and if he created the natural law and ordained the existence of earth and the evolution of human beings even down to the details of their lives, it seems he can accomplish his purposes through natural means. To me it only makes sense that God seems to be invisible. If I was writing a story, and I wanted a particular character to die, I'd put him in a battle. If I wanted him to father a child, I'd give him a pleasant evening. If I wanted him to commit a crime, I'd put him in a desperate situation. To the characters in the book, there would be no evidence of an author. If the book is written well, it will be internally consistent. It's dissatisfying when an event is clearly contrived. This is a metaphor, of course. But I think it's a pretty good one. At any rate, it isn't self evident that the universe would look the same if there was a God or no God. We'd need a universe with and without to compare if we wanted to know that.
Besides, you're only right that God hasn't interacted with the world if miracles don't occur. There are lots of stories of miracles. I think the only miracle that really needs to be considered is the resurrection of Christ. That's the miracle to end all miracles. If he didn't rise, where did the story come from? How do you explain the spread of Christianity? We know it didn't evolve over time into what it is. The doctrine has remained the same from the beginning. The book of 1 Corinthians was written ~20 years after Christianity began. Non-Christian sources describe Christianity as early as 95 B. C., earlier than some of the New Testament writings.
If God does exist, and he has interacted with the world in a way that defies physics or natural law, he would do it with a miracle. Then it's just down to whether you believe the miracles or not.
Assuming a supernatural entity does neither. Yet, the naturalistic worldview is based on empirical evidence. The theistic one is pure speculation with nothing to show for.
Great video! I think part of the problem is when we Christians say “Creation vs Evolution”, we are actually doing the Gospel a disservice. Christ is our anchor, our foundation. How God created the works is not how one is brought to salvation.
I agree for the most part, but the Gospel does hinge on sin, Adam’s headship, and Christ’s better headship. Sin came from Adam directly as G-d did not make it. Death, at least human death wasn’t possible before the fall since sin brings death and eventually death itself will be thrown into Hell. Christ assumed the headship from Adam as He was sinless as Adam, and thus Jesus has the right to represent mankind before G-d. The Gospel at least needs it’s beginning, it’s salvation, and it’s eternity.
Great Video! I teach a course at our Christian School here in Saipan to help graduating seniors deal with this very real issue. Many graduate, go on to college and are faced with incontrovertible facts of science that conflict with their world view as a Christian. It is so important that we guide our students with most recent scholarly works like John Walton or NT Wright or even more with the likes of Denis Lamoureux (PhD trained Biologist and Theologian) and show that there is no real conflict with what the Bible demonstrates in Genesis and what science has demonstrated.
Great! I'm in Cambodia teaching Comparative Worldview. Keep up with the good work!
I have been watching some of your videos about God, religion, and science (evolution). Thank you for making such meaningful videos, and your videos also cured me from experiencing existential crisis and depression.
That is great to hear! Thanks for sharing that with me.
As a Christian and biologist (of sorts, I look at biology from a mathematical point of view), I have been challenged by both Christians and scientists about whether I am on the right track. I recently left a church because of a debate with the pastor over Evolution, and I did not have the words to explain it at the time, but there are multiple theories of evolution. I started seeing your TH-cam shorts a few months ago, so I subscribed. I tend to believe in the Documentary Hypothesis personally, but other that than, I find your videos fascinating.
Thanks for posting. Would suggest reading Humani Generis, as well as writings of Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI as well as those from 19th century like Card John Henry Newman… you will see the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church is not only pro science but is a much more robust beyond an either /or paradigm
@@TheRugger34 Thanks! I am actually joining the Episcopal/Anglican Church which shares a lot in common with Catholicism. I like the liturgical worship services, and I like that both churches are open minded to the sciences compared to many protestant churches
Either you have a tremendous intellect.. which I believe you do ..or you're in tune to the leading of the spirit.. which I believe you are ..for such truth to span over so many topics. And to convert some who were not Christians but through your logic have become such . ..e.g. Christians..it is a tremendous blessing ..to be inspired of God.. and I think you are. blessings . keep up the good work. God is with you. Daniel was told it in the last day knowledge would be increased I think this channel is a perfect example of that and we should treat it as such and understand where we are in time.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm
@@a.39886 im Christian but I dont necessarily believe in everything in the Bible I think God made us but maybe in different ways I think both science and Christianity may connect but its far too advanced for us too comprehend.
11:01 “Nature is designed to bring about certain characteristics in evolution, guided by natural laws.”
Nature is Designed - True the Designer is God
Natural Laws - True God is the Lawgiver
Great vid IP. I would just like to add that, even though a lot of this vid showed evidence for things like convergence and process structuralism, I think an even stronger line can be taken: that even if Neo-Darwinian synthesis is correct, that it does not pose any problem for Christianity. The reason is that science, left by itself, cannot detect purpose, but can only propose a mechanism. It is simply not within the scope of science to answer questions of purpose. If the mechanism happens to be Neo-Darwinian, or something else, it does not say anything about the existence of things like objective morality, the Resurrection, an afterlife, salvation, etc. These types of things, if true, would have to exist outside of scientific mechanisms, so no matter how the science is settled on evolution - or anything else - (and we have all seen it is far from settled), it is not the kind of thing affects the truth of Christianity. Put another way, if someone rejects Christianity, they could not have done so on scientific grounds (since no scientific result/implication can possibly prove/disprove it), they would have to have their minds made up in some other way.
Peace!
“Far from proven”? Evolution is one of the most well documented Theories(scientific with an uppercase T, is not the same as a colloquial theory) in science. By saying “if settled” “if true” you demonstrate that you don’t understand science and that whole attitude pushes people away from Christianity. I don’t know where you’re looking to have “seen” but the science is overwhelming settled on evolution. Science is always open to new evidence but the evidence we have is over whelming. You can’t just make a claim against and establish Theory without presenting new evidence and expect to be taken seriously. You trying to claim that the science is not established, will and does just make people dismiss Christianity. Your argument is not making Christianity more enticing, it is actually pushing people away in droves. If you simply stop denying basic science people would be more enticed to our faith. Science and Christianity can very easily go hand-in-hand,I accept both, if you want to try to put them against each other as if they are diametrically opposed then you will simply push people away from our faith. I don’t understand why so much of the church is so committed to pushing so many different narratives that push people away from Christianity.
@@danielclingen34 Seen Professor Daves Video on the Discovery Institute?
It proposes a VAST problem for Christianity.
@@loturzelrestaurant Isn’t it the video where he destroys the discovery institute?
@@peacepipe6695 Why? I don’t see how it does, and I’m not even a Christian
Really interesting video. Great work!
Dawkins said, the theory of evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I propose that Quantum Theory has made it possible to be a theistic physicist. Because, evolution presupposes a naturalist world, and uniformity of nature and change. But quantum theory does not presuppose a naturalist worldview. It simply finds that material reality is dependent upon an observer or thinker. So, there is no need for the slow process of evolution in order to bring something out of nothing, or complexity out of simplicity
Quantum theory does not mean that the universe requires an observer, that is a misrepresentation.
At a certain point, we cannot observe a phenomenon without changing it. This is because we need two objects to interact in order to observe them. A photo bouncing off a cup of water has no meaningful effect on the cup or the water in it, so we can observe it without changing it in a meaningful way.
Photons only work to a certain size though, so eventually we need to use electrons. Bouncing an electron off a virus won't have a meaningful effect on it, so we can still safely observe it without changing it.
But eventually this breaks down. If you try to look at a single atom of helium, what you are doing is like firing a cannon at a tank and trying to figure out what model of tank it is by measuring how much the cannonball bounces. This is going to beat the shit out of the tank.
_this_ is what we mean when we say observations effect the quantum world. It isn't that a mind processing it changes it, it's that we are trying to measure things by shooting cannons at them, and you can't know how well it stands up to a cannonball till you shoot it.
I would also argue that one doesn't need quantum physics to be a theistic physicist but that is a whole other argument. Lol
MarvAlice True. One doesn't need quantum physics to be a theistic physicist. 😃
MarvAlice Changing the behaviour of photons in a "meaningful way" is not the issue. It's the behaviour of waves of potential reality as matter when observed that is the issue. This begs the question: is matter fundamental? No. Because it cannot exist as matter without an observer. So, naturalism or materialism is not the true nature of the world.
Dawkins was not there to witness evolution Science cannot prove evolution . All Dawkins has is his opinion . { Jerimiah 17:9 Above all things the heart is Decietful and desperately wicked , who can know it .} That sums up man and his opinions and theories people like Dawkins . Gods perfect word says in Genesis that God created everything . I am going to choose to believe God who was willing to take on human flesh come to earth and be beaten , denied , rejected , spat upon , betrayed as Jesus was and Still Jesus the one true God came to earth and willingly went through all of that to pay a sin debt he did not owe . And offer us the free gift of salvation and eternal life Jesus made possible on the cross . Knowing what we know about mans wicked heart I choose to trust Jesus and the Holy Bible over the opinion of man . Jesus loves you .
@@christianjames7210 Absolutely! Personally, I don't like to think we evolved for millions of years from fish when Jesus died on the cross because of Adam and Eve who came from a HOLY 6 days of creation.
How can one believe God raised man from the dead, but not believe God spoke life into existence? How can one believe God is omnipotent but not believe God spoke life into existence? How can one believe we arrived here by random chance, but also believe we are destined for a realm that is both unseen and unexperienced by any physical human sense?
The prophecy says you will come denying the coming, the creation, and the flood, yet still claiming Christ.
Christians have been getting along fine with evolutionary theory. Historically most Christians had little trouble with it. About 100 years ago the Pope said It's not a problem either. The myth that you have to reject evolution is dumb.
Calm down Ed
When no scientist would have anything to do with Darwin's idea, it was the Catholic church who decided they liked the religion of the Favoured Races (the white ones, not the Jews or Blacks or Asians). They backed it, so it eventually became mainstream.
You can technically believe in God and then in evolution, you believe that God decided to use a convoluted and impossible method to create mankind. It will, however, create the problem of serving two masters.
Max Kolbe ن Which evolutionary theory?...cause IP shows some compelling evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution. And "the church" has not, in general, historically understood genesis creation as parable. Modern day church yes. I agree with you that one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but i think you are trying to whitewash history a bit.
L Dov the high levels of the Church today are filled with Freemasons and modernist liberals so that’s not surprising
Max Kolbe ن that doesn’t make evolution (as taught today) correct. If Christians want to go along with it, then okay, but it is a slippery slope to decide to go with the flow of men. Evolution (as taught today and as promoted constantly by the media) is simply false.
So refreshing to hear this.
Always good to expose yourself to new ideas:D
And the art at 18:52 is amazing and I'd hang that in my house.
To be honest, I always new evolution since I was a young kid because I'm very science based, but I always believed in the Bible, they do really go together that much
How
@@silentghost751 in my oppion many of the things the Bible is against are animalistic like qualities like (stealing, lust, hurting others, greed, murder... Ect.)
In evolution, it explains how we all came from animals and even we are animals, so I always thought that would make since why do many people are evil and act just as animals.
Bible verse Jeremiah 17:9-The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?
It would make since if humans have terrible hearts if we did evolve from animals, so I use the Bible as an moral compass so I can be less like them, that's why I believe it to be true to some extent.
The bible is the claim, not the evidence. We have no justification for caring what the bible says at all.
@@2l84me8 the Bible had evidence in it, no one would follow it if it made no since. Do you want me to tell you how I know it's true, or at least some of it is?
@@dickersoncharlie4961 The bible is the claim, not evidence. And a poorly written and immoral one at that too. But why not? Do your best.
Science is the discovery of God's creation.
Christian here (not Catholic) evolution from now to the end is just gods never ending gift, he simply blessed us with a soul. All those billions of years is not even a blink of an eye for god. And I’m sure god also blessed other species with souls scattered across this grand and mysterious universe he created. We are lucky to have been blessed with souls so long ago, and have free will just like the angels
I enjoyed this video so much!!!!
God bless you guys!
Well there actually are many young earth creationists, and Christians who reject evolution, that Believe you can still be a Christian and believe in evolution they just believe that belief is problematic. I think this is more of a theological issue, it doesn’t affect the canon of scripture at all.
Coming from someone with a Master's in Biology, this is a wonderfully well-researched video! It is a great improvement over your previous video a few years ago on the same topic, and even that video had been more than decent.
There is one very minor qualifier that you probably should have added. If life were also evolving on another planet *with sufficiently similar conditions* to those of Earth, it would almost certainly evolve into similar forms. Adaptive pressures, which determine which traits will be reproductively advantageous, are after all contingent on the conditions of environment.
That is, however, a relatively minor complaint. Overall, this video is amazing!
Great point which I was also thinking about towards the end of watching this video. However, this raises the question.. Given the natural lawns which God created our universe under, if life can exist on planets with conditions that are similar to Earth, why is Earth all important over other planets. Was Jesus resurrected on all planets in which contain life that comes to our intelligent point? Finding hard to find an an answer in line with God for this reason.
@@zachhoward9336 I have thought a lot about this too. Why did Jesus incarnate as man and not as an armadillo or an Android? I think Jesus incarnates in any form that can lead his creation to the Father. So on Earth, 2000 years ago it was as man. “God became man so man may become God” St. Athanasius. My belief is that if other life on other planets has body, spirit and soul then Jesus would incarnate for them too. The original Star Trek series had an episode on this topic. I think it was call the Cult of the Son.
Are you an American by any chance?
@@mashruralam5795 Ngl, you should really check professor dave and others talk about evolution denial to see with exactly whaat kind of people your siding and associating with.
@@nenmaster5218 Prof Dave who? What is his last name or TH-cam channel?
This is why the book of Genesis stressed a lot when it came to the creation of mankind. God clearly conveyed to us that we came from dust in His image with His breath. This proved that we didn't come from primates and that God wants us to understand that we are a masterpiece, very different and "fearfully and wonderfully created." (Psalm 139:14)
th-cam.com/video/Q49G4tihX3Y/w-d-xo.html
Also, a word for "from" is not in the Hebrew of Genesis 2. It literally says, "God Yatsar'ed man, dust of the earth." Being dust was also an idiom to just mean mortality.
The bible does not PROVE anything. It is words in a book. Religion is based on FAITH. My belief in God is based on faith. If there was no bible I would still believe in God. Evolution is creation!
@Jerry Schneider - You don't find it odd that nothing in the Bible has been shown to be wrong in any way? Be it through empirical science or historical science. No you have no faith in God, your faith lies in man and his ridiculously ignorant knowledge of nature. The Bible in actuality has many scientific points, which could not have been known and were not known until just the past century or less....go figure eh?
@@Flagrum3 Who are you to say I have no faith in God? On the contrary, you are the one that insists on PROVING the bible through science. I do not care what science thinks of the bible or what the bible thinks of science .
@Jerry Schneider -Who am I to say you have no faith? One who does have complete faith and doesn't question God's words as you do. I'm going to guess you are a Protestant or a facsimile of, due to your "Faith Alone" stance. Sorry to burst your bubble but faith alone is wrong unbiblical and heretical. You are again mistaken when you state "you are the one that insists on PROVING the bible through science". I use science as only one means of showing evidence for my faith as God intended, otherwise he wouldn't have left us all the evidence in the first place.
I think you can still believe in evolution as a Christian, as long as you still admit God created everything in the world. I don't believe it's the correct way to look at both Christianity and evolution, but, just in case...
I consider myself a devout Catholic, and even though I am, I think evolution actually did happen. Maybe it was really God birthing humans through evolution.
Fantastic work IP:)
This should have way more views. Greatly researched and informative video. Thank you.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .,.
Michael: I had a crisis of faith about maybe 30 years ago. I had made the mistake of marrying someone who was mentally ill (at the time I was unaware but there were flags everywhere, and my Christian friends warned me not to go through with it) and that marriage went seriously bad, seriously fast. So I was already thinking, "where are you, God?" when I was reading something someone wrote about the book of 1st Corinthians, where Paul talks about the first Adam and the "last Adam" (i.e., Jesus) and they said that there must therefore have been an actual Adam and Eve and from there extrapolated that only a young Earth model would work. But I know that the science points to an ancient Earth, and I couldn't reconcile the two, so between that and my already burgeoning depression, I walked away. I never got to the place where I said I didn't believe in Christ―I couldn't do that!―but I stopped going to church (which my wife hated), stopped reading the Bible, stopped praying.
It's now thirty years later (my wife passed away six years ago), and a few months ago I heard Jordan Peterson giving a talk on Genesis, and something he said made sense. It "clicked." He talked about how the early hominids were evolving into Homo sapiens, and then one day, something miraculous happened: a spark, and one of the early humans down there in the clay suddenly had self-consciousness. A soul, made in God's image. Then another, his mate. The first two of a new creation. And it called to my mind the verse in Zechariah, that God "forms the spirit of man within him." And I felt a voice inside me saying, "This? Could you believe this?" and I responded, "Yes; I believe I can" and I found myself back with the Lord again. (I'm still working on the praying part, though...)
Very well thought out. I thoroughly enjoyed your video. I’m so grateful I found it!
Wether God chose evolution or not when He created human lives, it matters not. The truth is there is God. No worries, trust Him. He is Good.
amen brother 🙏
It does obviously matter and in a great way, since it creates doubts and disbliefs among people.
Like how many times, when you begin to talk to a non-believer about God and the Bible, they ask about the inconsistencies between the story of Genesis in the Bible and the process of evolution?
Supposed inconsistencies between Biblical creation story and evolution are probably the biggest or the second biggest stumbling blocks there are. The other one, as big as this, is the problem of evil.
It does matter coz they are lies and lies mess up nations of people. Lies kill, it's only truth that brings hope and restoration. Anywats God clearly states in His word how He made everything so its not like we are in the dark about it.
How do you know that there is a God? Just because someone else made him up for you and you use logical fallacies to justify your faith based believe, does not make a God real.
It absolutely matters. Why do you call God "he?"
Notice how Adam and Eve were never even mentioned?
@@justchilling704 the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Notice how Antievolutionists never mention the Wisdom of Solomon, generally dated to the late first century BC... "For the elements, in ever-changing harmony, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place. For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on land." Wisdom 19-18-19
@@user-dy7ce2bb9d Read the whole chapter. The author is talking about the parting of the Red Sea, the plagues in Egypt, and the Exodus: "For the whole creation in its nature was fashioned anew,
complying with your commands, so that your children might be kept unharmed. The cloud was seen overshadowing the camp, and dry land emerging where water had stood before, an unhindered way out of the Red Sea, and a grassy plain out of the raging waves, where those protected by your hand passed through as one nation, after gazing on marvelous wonders. For they ranged like horses, and leaped like lambs, praising you, O Lord, who delivered them. For they still recalled the events of their sojourn, how instead of producing animals the earth brought forth gnats, and instead of fish the river spewed out vast numbers of frogs. Afterward they saw also a new kind of birds, when desire led them to ask for luxurious food; for, to give them relief, quails came up from the sea." (Wisdom of Solomon 19:6-12)
Here are the creatures referenced in verses 18-19, land animals changed into water creatures and those that swam going over on land: the gnats, frogs, and quail mentioned in verses 6-12. This isn't a discussion of origins but of the miraculous events of the Exodus.
@@bumblyjack right, lol
www.david notice how the book is an apocrypha book and is not canon to the Tanakh? It is not apart of the Old Testament, it is added much later. It teaches many things that are not true and historically inaccurate. It is thought to be written by King Solomon, but his name is written nowhere. The only people who accept this book is the Catholic as it was officially integrated into the catholic bible in the 1500s at the council of Trent. This book was written many centuries after the death of Solomon and it is widely accepted he did not write this because is it dated to the 1st century bc. It is said to be written by Solomon’s friends in his honor. This apocrypha book contradicts the Holy Bible and should no be taken seriously.
This video is very well done. It cleared some questions I had from taking previous biology courses. Thank you!
This video did its homework. Great job!
Funnily enough I started going to church around the same time I started taking an evolution course and an evolutionary biology in human health course for my studies. I had always “believed” in evolution but never believed in God and Jesus until recently. However, learning about evolution in depth while also hearing and engaging with the Word every week actually supported my choice to be a believer and cleared a lot of my hangups. Laypeople take both the Bible and evolutionary theory way too literally and I think that causes misunderstanding. If you view evolution as more than just a byproduct of natural selection, adaptation, and random chance events, you get caught in the weeds. For one, you can’t view randomness from our fallible human perception of what is considered orderly. Yet still we can reconcile that evolution has no goal or plan but God does, so there isn’t even a viable comparison to be made. I think God wants us to question and intellectualize things regarding our life and His plans for us, and He is more than willing to show us out of love what He can do when we have faith in Him despite it all. I also think there’s a whole metaphysical aspect that isn’t even accounted for like mysteries of consciousness, the boom in human culture and technology 50,000 years ago and our unrelenting desire to figure out our own origins. I personally interpret original sin and our likeness to God’s image as possibly the paradox of being too aware of our own mortality and suffering for our own good, and that humanness is shown spiritually and evolutionarily in our innate fear of death. Could’ve been triggered by the metaphorical apple that was eaten by mitochondrial eve. Many aspects of our brain and being can be contextualized by evolutionary theory, but I still believe every part of it is instituted by God. Point is we can speculate the whys and hows all day, but the bottom line is that you either do or don’t believe we are saved by faith in Christ despite all of it. I’m grateful to say I do!
It's not good when fantasy meets reality and fantasy shall be on the same level as reality.
But those who believe in an extraterrestrial, created our universe while he was in the fifth dimension, can believe in everything.
A concrete finding is. Nothing earthly can have created our earth. Nothing from our dimension can have created this dimension. So God is a fifth dimensional Alien.
My recommendation: Run away screaming.
THIS is what Christians need to hear
Link to part 2? I can't find it on your list
I think it's his imago dei video
I’m just here because of my homework :/
How good did you do.
@@alijahtheguy I spent hours on it and my teacher didn’t even look at it 😭
I was and still consider myself a Naturalist still believing in evolution, raised by an atheist/agnostic stepfather, and yet here we are and I read the gospel and found it to be true and drew near and made it my lifestyle the way one must do more than take a few Taekwondo classes as a kid or a few trial classes of jiu jitsu as an adult...it became my lifestyle by active participation not empty belief. You must draw near and walk the walk, like kierkergaard suggests not worry about debate and talking the talk like an armchair fighter or skeptics. Walking in to a place with the faith in your self defense/martial art is like having children or experiencing Christ/God by drawing near, you either have or not. Just having sex doesn't produce fruit. Watching UFC matches doesn't make you or train you. You must draw near and follow, you must stay on the mat and not pull out.
A Fun-Fact for the Ages:
Flat-Earth and Evolution-Denial are classified as the exact same THing:
Science-Denial and a Conspiracy-Theory.
So if you though theres 'different Viewpoints' here, youve been wrong.
There is counter-evidence or such.
Flat-EArth-Debunk-Channels, if they wanna take a quick breaak
from debunking Flat-Earth will debunk Evolution-Denial;
yeah, that happens.
Thank you so much for this.
As a Christian, I neither accept or reject evolution. I am open to both views. If God created us through evolution, then that's fine with me. Fundamentalists are not doing us any favors by telling us that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. If there is overwhelming evidence for evolution (which I am an agnostic to), then why reject it?
I hold to Gap theory of Creation.
Theistic Evolution downplays the importance of Original Sin
@@jenex5608 the gap theory is a great way to hold a old earth view without comprimising on doctrine
IP I have a question -
I heard you saying that the six days are about assigning a purpose/ inducing order to creation -
Why would / How can God create a chaotic universe or a universe without order?
Thanks
Check out his Genesis series
So Star Trek style aliens that all look basically human is probably accurate.
Lol
Yeah, structuralism confirms it then
I wouldn't say so. But we haven't discovered any other intelligent races so I would't be sure.
Hey IP can you do a debate on this with Hugh ross. I want to hear views on both of you.
Hugh ross is important, whether he's right or wrong, he thinks the right way, and it would be wild to see ip and hugh together.
At 1:45 - He says this will be done in 2 videos. Where is the link to the 2nd video?
Thanks 🙏
God is sovereign. Nothing is random. That should be a philosophical and biblical proposition that we do not compromise. However God brought man into being, the process led inevitably to man. It could not have led to something "like man." "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27).
Absolutely fascinating, keep it up, good sir 👍.
So this is simple, one answers the who the other answers the how.
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the video. You should do a video on why Neo-Darwinian and orthodox-Darwinian perspectives have severe flaws that Darwin himself acknowledged in the Origin of Species. You had a book in your video referencing the Burgess Shale. I’m assuming you would be familiar with Walcott’s discovery that rocked Darwin’s theory to its core to render it as a theory predicated not on evidence, but mere conjecture that has its basis far from the recently uncovered Maotianshan shale in China.
These uncovered fossil records show the Cambrian explosion, which again I’m sure you’re familiar with. Darwin’s theory relied upon the thought that microevolution within a particular species would yield macro changes in higher taxonomic categories, such as phylum. If this were the case, the Cambrian explosion, which revealed sudden appearances of complex, multicellular organisms, would be preceded in the fossil record in the Precambrian strata by ancestral forms of these Cambrian creatures. However, you find nothing of the sort in the Precambrian layer to suggest ancestral forms of the trilobite, for example. And any and all forms of potential animal life you do see in the pre-Cambrian strata are simple celled non-complex organisms not at all resembling what would most reasonably precede the Cambrian fauna in a Darwinian worldview, which again would necessarily be creatures resembling the animals that pop up out of nowhere seemingly in the Cambrian layer. There is no intermediate connective fossil records that reflect creatures that would fill the morphological distance between the Precambrian single celled simple organisms and the multicellular complex organisms that explode on the scene in distinct episodic events during the Cambrian period.
Not only that, but Darwin wrongly extrapolates micro changes within a species (the Galapagos finches example), citing a bird’s varying beak sizes, and utilizes that as proof that macro changes can happen from species to a different species. This is a jump that far surpasses the foundation of pejoratives that secularists have for theists when they accuse them of “blind faith”. No evidence whatsoever is available to us of intra-species changes leading to inter-species changes.
I know the point of your video was to say that Christians can believe evolution and hold to theism. Which is true. In the same way that Christians can hold to the thought that God uses the secondary means of invisible sky fairies to direct the natural causes of the weather for example. It’s consistent with the supernatural nature of God, and the Bible doesn’t preclude it - but the evidence doesn’t suggest its true.
I don’t think it’s wise to pander to secularists who are losing ground, and who are admitting so in their calls for revision of Neo-Darwinism as it lacks the creative power to explain what has been discovered in geological finds.
It’s as if the Cambrian explosion, with the sudden appearances of most of the animal phylum we have today, given the absence of preceding ancestral forms inherently necessary to the validity of microevolution leading to macro evolution, is testifying to the truth of God’s Word- God spoke in separate occasions, and creation did not hesitate to get there, nor did it gradually become what is displayed for us to see ages later, but creation said “yes Lord”, with immediacy, and appeared.
I think we would do best to presuppose the truth of God’s Word. But even if you don’t, the bottom up evidence suggests the validity of it still, to the exclusion of micro changes leading to macro changes.
I’m reading Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer currently. I can’t believe what all was not taught in public school. It’s astounding and shameful. Have you heard of the author?
Yes, the problem with evolution is scientific abd philosophical, not religious. God can create however he wants, and he doesn't exactly tell us how, only "that", He did it.
The primary problem is an admitted prior commitment to philosophical materialism on the part of "science"; so that even if the facts point to God as the explanation, that explanation is excluded because it is not naturalistic. Therefore "there must be another explanation" however tortured and dishonest it may be, and to hell with the facts.
It reminds me of "The Simpsons" where Bart and Milhouse get bored and decide to put on ladies' wigs and jump around on the bed. Bart falls off and gets hurt, and Homer comes in to investigate: "(GASP) Oh my God, what's going on here?! (through gritted teeth while shaking fist threateningly:) *AND I WANT THE NON-GAY EXPLANATION* !! "
Milhouse: "Umm... we're drunk. Really, really drunk."
Homer: "Whew, thank GOD!"
@@nunyabidness5375 the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve ..-,
Name of background music @7:05 🎶 would be much appreciated 🙏
Great video. I studied Forensic science so while I may not be a PhD yet, I know you made no mistakes in your info. Good job and thank you. Maybe you can make more like these in the future to keep people updated on this topic.
Great video as always, IP.
For the sake of balance, how about a video examining arguments against evolution (genomic entropy, polygenism vs monogenism, Thomistic concerns, etc.)
Agreed. I’ve always wondered why viruses can affect the human race but not cats or dogs or any other animal that is a “common ancestor”. If humans are the “most genetically evolved” then why do we get more illnesses than the rest of every other species?
@@lyssalouise2705 I assume it is because of the complexity of the more advanced processes that lead to having more possible errors. For example, if I did a 3 step process I can fail in step 1 and step 2. But if I have a 25 step process I have more steps to worry about.
@@lyssalouise2705 First of all, cats and dogs are not "common ancestors" of humans. The common ancestors of humans don't exist anymore. Humans, dogs, and cats _share_ a common ancestor that is long-gone, in the same way you and your siblings share a common ancestor (your parents) that predates both of you. Second, viruses specialize for specific locuses. In order to target one species, they're often giving up the ability to target other species. This is called an evolutionary trade-off. These locuses are coded by the host's genome, and the host's genome is subject to change. Viruses evolve in antagonistic relationships with their hosts.
Look at the evolution of HIV for example. Until relatively recently, it could not infect humans at all. Then it underwent a mutation that made it weakly infectious of humans. Then it made the jump to humans and began adapting to the human environment, and became extremely infectious. That's why there is a whole family of HIV, SIV, and other relatives. If we fast-forward a million years in the future, our descendants will have undergone mutations, so their genomes will not be quite like ours. For the sake of argument, let's say humanity bifurcates into two species.
So, we (human A) would be the common ancestors of two distinct species, human B and human C. Unless it's totally eradicated, HIV will have evolved with either human B or human C (probably it will have bifurcated as well, following both) and will have mutated to adapt to the genetic changes in humanity. At some point, it will stop targeting the human A loci it currently targets, and will instead adapt to new human B and human C loci. So, just like many HIV strains can no longer infect other simians, even though their cousin SIV still possesses that ability, there will be strains of HIV that lose the ability to target human A, in return for the ability to target human B or human C.
Similarly, people in the future might notice that human B is more "conservative," that is, preserves more features of human A. Even though human B and human C will be equally related to human A, it's possible one of them will be more conservative and one of them will be more novel. And in that event, it's possible that when HIV bifurcates into two strains, (one of which infects human B, the other infects human C) that one of the strains (human B) will also be more conservative and therefore technically able to infect human A (us), even though we won't exist anymore. So, this would be analogous to the situation we have now where viruses can't just infect every species that preserves ancestral features of their preferred host.
@@lyssalouise2705 because humans were humans and not any other species. Read Genesis
@@silentghost751 tons of well educated, bible affirming people read Genesis and don’t come to the same conclusions of you.
Fascinating video but does @inspriringphilophy have a follow up video reconciling the Biblical account of Adam and the fall, creation and the flood to the Evolutionary account? Many Christians are drawn into Young Earth Creationism because a superficial reading of the text seems to require it. As many of them have had very little scientific training, YEC offers an easy solution. However, if we're misinterpreting the text, the standard scientific account may be compatible.
For the flood, see his videos on genesis 6-7. Also watch "biblical problems for YEC"
Please make the music lower. So, we can focus on the strong message. Thank you and may God bless your ministry ❤
I don't see any evidence from scripture that God used evolution to create mankind.
why does God have to explain why or how they do anything?
"For who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been his counselor?"
@@spadajnadrzewo9965 "In the image of God He created them, male and female." It's true that the Bible's purpose isn't to reveal every mystery, but the manner in which God created mankind is not one of them. We can believe what is written.
When we can hear from God we can order our lives accordingly and know that with the help of God whatever we do will prosper. This is a tremendous benefit in this age of non-belief.
When you're showing the book "The Lie Evolution" By: Ken Ham, are you recommending it or just showing the picture?
Not having to worry about the age of creation, or whether or not biology can adapt to changes in environment/climate has been one of the most freeing things I've encountered since leaving young earth creationism and coming home to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Amen... 🙏 I use to cry so much because I didn't have all the answers XDDD but I decide to not worry about it.. and just focus on believing and spreading the gospel of CHRIST! ❤
Two are the books that speaks about God: The Scripture and the Book of Nature.
If the two seems in contradiction then we misinterpreted the first or we misunderstood the other, because both have the same author.
-Paraphrasing Galileo Galilei, himself quoting and echoing Tertullianus.
Michael is pretty smart to add pictures to help explain this. It is good for a bear with little brain who might hold his head with his paws on hearing some of this. But still gets something out of it.
Science vs Theology: For the purposes of this discussion I would like to assume that Jesus was The Son of God, or God incarnate, and also assume that there is a validity to the Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Big Bang Theory (and to remind folks TBBT was thought up by a Practicing Catholic Priest while working in the Vatican's Astronomical Facility).
If Jesus was God, here to awaken people as a teacher, that means God was talking to us, teaching us. If this is so, we have to ask ourselves, How did he teach his followers? How did he speak to his followers?
Did he break the Universe down to the atomic and teach science?
Did he teach us maths, and teach about the beauty that comes in geometry or calculus?
Did he speak _Literally_ and clearly?
Were his teachings meant to have singular meanings, or were they meant to have layers of meaning(s)?
We're told Jesus spoke for, "those to have ears to hear." Which I understood to mean, "Most people will hear this, but there are those who will also hear a deeper meaning in the words."
He taught in a way to make people think, rather than stating obvious truths. He taught by analogy. Nearly anyone who has ever read or studied the scriptures would agree to that, but those who study the scriptures only as born-again Christians to validate their faith, insist all scriptures were written literally, as if taken down by dictation from God himself, and therefor they must be literal without error. I posit, Jesus did Not, When God had the opportunity to speak to us (human beings) directly, he spoke in the _language of analogy,_ Why then would Christians believe God spoke to us literally in the scriptures? The very idea that Genesis or any of the scriptures describing the creation or any of the works of God could have been written as analogy seems to short-circuit their thinking. If there is a message from God, and God in the body of Jesus spoke thusly, why the change?
If Jesus was God speaking to us, and he chose to spoke in analogy, why? Because he was teaching intellectual children who may one day grow and learn to think like adults. How would a modern person explain anything complex to a child, Or to a perfectly rational and intelligent adult person from a primitive culture? How could you explain how a flashlight works, or the combustion engine in your car or boat? Could you explain any of the _why do they work?"_ questions to someone with zero understanding of any modern science? You may explain, _science,_ they may hear, _magic,_ or come to believe in your _miracles._
Personally, I think it is actually quite amazing how consistent the Genesis story is to the scientific story, how much they got right (according to science) if you can read Genesis as an analogy, and remember who the stories were being told to/for. If a _"day"_ is read to mean a period of time, instead of a twenty four hour period, as in, _"In my Great Grandfather's day that lake froze every year, but it doesn't any more,"_ There are a few things created out of order _{but Genesis does have the creation of humans being one of God's most recent creatures; according to evolution humans as we known them is/are a fairly young species, a couple million years versus most animal species we hang out with: ie donkeys, horses, bovine, chickens, most of those species are tens of millions of years old}._
I would also like to remind everyone that science, itself, is not infallible. Science, and scientists have a long history of being wrong, about damned near everything, until someone gets a better new idea, and then it seems an entire new generation of scientists have to wait for the old generation to die before adopting the newest _(and therefor more perfect)_ theories. Those scientists are as sure of their _facts_ as were their predecessors. So, how reliable is science? We hope we discard the inaccurate for something that is closer to truth, but how can we really be sure?
As one who has traveled extensively about the planet I have often wondered at the world, how simple it can be, _and/or/yet,_ how complex; the might and majesty, the awesome powers~ wonderous and fear-inspiring. The _just happening,_ that science advocates doesn't seem adequate. But that could be residual parochial-ness of my up-bringing.
But the official-story as handed down in scriptures doesn't seem as _truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth,_ the faithful would have you believe either.
Thank you for doing such hard work
+InspiringPhilosophy , I don't expect you're bothering to read and respond in the comments. I don't expect you're looking for conversation--you've heard plenty of the problems of evolution, but evidence was not convincing to you over elaborate and impossible theory. If you were were willing to say this, then speak to people, they probably wouldn't be losing faith in you.
Evolution and creation aren’t a minor issue.
Can i put this video on my channel?
Sarah wanted to say I appreciate your channel and your approach to these types of issues. Thank you for the open dialogue about this particular topic, for many years growing up in the church I was always told that evolution is wrong and evil, yet as I've pursued my education as I've gotten older, I can't help but question the young Earth theories, I found myself having real problems with the Earth only being 6,000 years old, or 14,000 years old or whatever they're saying now. I simply don't believe that's true, we have evidence that the universe that we can see is around 14 billion years old or so, so having God given us brains we can think about these issues using some logic and trusting that God will fill in the gaps. Jesus still died on the cross, his blood still covers our sins and I trust him with my life and my salvation. No need to go to war over something that we can't really prove either way, and it doesn't take Jesus off the throne.
What a dumb question. It's like saying "Can you be a christian and believe in gravity?"
Thank you, IP, for always keeping your content Gospel-driven and Biblical… Mer
Ngl, you should really check professor dave and others talk about evolution denial to see with exactly whaat kind of people your siding and associating with.
@@nenmaster5218 the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .nm
@@nenmaster5218 my guy did u even watch the video ? He never denied evolution .
Is there a link to the second video?
I must say this video fell into my hands as a result of prayer.
Just today I was tempted in the area I am more fragile for, sexualy, I had the chesse and knife on my hand to do something that i would regreat for the rest of my life, and I fell disgusted of the simple tought of doing so.
After that point in the day I was kind of relived, enough bible reading and asking God for His grace had helped me put this so long fought enemy of mine at bay.
Just after that my faith started to be atack, manly in the way of how God created the earth and how compatible that may be with what science says, and soon after doubt the temptation comes back and this time it has a ally, afte all as a tought is formed in my mind "why stay faithfull to a God that maybe don''t exist ?" so this video has helpd me a lot today, thanks.
the devil is deceiving you put your trust in God almighty and you will see the truth we are a unique creation of God this is not science if meant to see you as another animal and not a special creation like we were designed by God as Adam and Eve .,.,m
Do you think salvation comes from believing in evolution or not? I don't feel less loved by God from this idea.
Personally I'm a fan of Lynn Margulis' symbiosis. Also, you're doing God's work
I wish you would have covered Axe's Undeniable or DNA by Stephen Meyer who are part of intelligent design which does overlap with your video but still have points you did not cover... such as probabilities of amino acid sequencing by the cell to form proteins much less how DNA (information) is the seed to Darwin's tree. Perhaps you can comment how this ties in...
4Liberty4Justice4All I agree. Doug Axe's protein folding experiments blow neo-Darwinian evolution away. Why dont these theistic evolutionists understand that if common descent evolution occured, it must have been "guided" somehow, which means it would be intelligent design, NOT evolution in its understood definition?!?
Good video - but how do you incorporate the introduction of Original Sin, the fall of man, the differentiation of our souls (which can be saved) from the souls of other creatures or other humanoids which were not "us"?
That is a really interesting argument. I have never thought of it before!
The best apologetics channel on YT! Keep it up!
I wish you had addressed the other arguments/inconsistencies, instead of only design and purpose. Time tables would be easy to resolve. But in my opinion, the most difficult to address is the problem of sin and death. Paul says that sin entered the world through one man, and through sin, death. If death didn’t exist before sin, the earth would have had a massive population problem and there would be ample evidence in fossils.
Great video!
Got lost after the 10 minute mark but still walked away with some amazing info thanks IP 😂
There are many things that contradict Christianity when it comes to evolution. Evolution says: 1 Death before sin 2 Sun before Earth 3 Reptiles before birds 4 We evolved from ape like creatures 5 Took billions of years to get here and I'm sure there is plenty more these are off the top of my head.
Love it, thanks for all the effort and God bless!!
Michael...how do you handle the mathematical challenges to evolution? For example, cellular biology is all about protein formations...the ratio of useful protein sequences to unuseful protein sequences is 1:(10)^77...the Cambrian explosion was only about 10mm years, was there really enough time for the complexity of life that occurred then?
Personally I'm a creationist, but I've never thought one couldn't be a Christian (or a member of any other Abrahamic religion) just because they believe evolution happened on the macro level. In my opinion it all comes down to what makes sense to the individual in this regard. For me creationism is what works best, I admit I could be wrong and I'm OK with that. Others see evolution as making more sense.