Huh? Some pastor thinks now is the time for evangelicals to “come out for evolution”?

Even young earth creationists believe in evolution. Mung

Awstar, Well spoken! tjguy

Israel in the old testament is used as a teaching moment for the church today. Israel's unbelief kept them in the desert thirty eight years longer then God desired, allowed wickedness to creep into their midst when God gave them all the rules necessary to stay holy, and finally prevented them from seeing their Messiah in their midst in spite of signs and wonders. Today in the church, if members don't believe what was written in scripture by Moses, the prophets and apostles for their instruction -- then church members won't believe the One who rose from the dead either. Instead they will place their bets on horses that are not only a losers, but even those that are dead -- such as evolution. awstar

I can understand people who don't like creationism or ID. But what I don't understand is people who cheerlead for Darwinism, especially in the Church. Even if it were true, I don't see what benefit it would be for the Church to promote Darwinism any more than for the Church to promote the Bohr model of the atom. Doctor's don't usually use their practices to promote marksmanship, and English teachers usually don't put their profession on the line for things that Dentists believe. If the origin of the world is under the purview of theology, then and only then is it worthwhile for the theologians to promote it. If the origin of the world is not under the purview of theology (which is what the Darwinists think), then what on earth are theologians doing promoting any particular view? johnnyb

It seems that liberal clergy have been eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning:

"Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin's natural selection as an instrument of God's design." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species

Which is not that surprising since 'Origin', besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology:

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

And to this day, Darwinism is still dependent on its bad theological argumentation in order to try to make its 'scientific' case. For one example, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:

Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw

bornagain77