Theistic evolution and Christ's sacrifice

angrylittlefisherman · #11 15th September 2009, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Luddite

All of those things have to do with what is between humans and God.

Evolution says nothing about it, because evolution says only something about how humans are made up and came about in a biological way. Nothing else.

I think this statment is what might be my biggest hang up with being able to accept it.

In an attempt to answer the point made by several people in regards to the irrelevancy of my previous statement, or rather the irrelevancy of those who find controversy with macro-evolution on a biological level. I want to try and point out the source of the controversy as I understand it. That matter is really one of a theological/philosophical matter, whether that is something recognized by the typical young earth creationist fundegelical Christian.
I have found that Darwin's theory is argued against on a purely scientific playing field, most people forget that true science is never absolute. Good science never promises or speaks in exclusively absolute terms ex. "This ball will fall every time I drop it." That would be bad science. What it seems to come down to when the "scientific" argument occurs is that most theories can be interpreted in many different fashions and appear to be reality.
What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root. Darwin's theory was developed at a moment in History when humanism and atheism were really becoming quite popular or mainstream. Nietzsche lived practically at the same time. So what concerns me more about the issue is that it was an action in a sense driven by a desire to replace God, to kill Him if you will. So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.
So I guess what I am really trying to figure out is how does a Christian reconcile a nihilistic idea to Christianity. How is meaning and person-hood brought into an idea that was and still is used to oppose these things?

Please forgive me, I am sure that I am annoying you all, but this is something that I am having a lot of trouble understanding, and I think that this topic is something one must have a handle on.

metherion · #12 15th September 2009, 05:34 AM

What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root. Darwin's theory was developed at a moment in History when humanism and atheism were really becoming quite popular or mainstream. Nietzsche lived practically at the same time. So what concerns me more about the issue is that it was an action in a sense driven by a desire to replace God, to kill Him if you will. So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.

I would like to point out a few things I see about your way of thinking, and perhaps apply them in ways you have not yet considered.

For starters. Merely because nihilism and atheism were becoming more commonplace does not make everything in that time period nihilistic. You say Darwinian evolution and nihilism. Let me make another comparison. Archimedes died a bit before 200 BC. In that time, paganism was rampant. But Archimedes’ principle about water displacement and flotation came from that time period. Does that mean that Archimedes’ principle should need to be reconciled with Christianity because it is tainted by paganism?

Also, specifically

What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root.
...
So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.

It was not born of a nihilist mindset. There are no real indications Darwin was a nihilist. He also didn’t lose his faith till after his daughter died/was near death. While on the HMS Beagle where he observed his famous finches, he was still a Christian. If nihilism and Christianity are directly opposed (i agree), and Darwin was a Christian when he came up with the theory, Darwin could not have been a nihilist when he came up with it, and therefore it is not born out of nihilism.

Also, on the subject, EVEN IF there were a philosophy tied around the science when it was prevented, that does not make the science less scientific. So strip the philosophy you don’t like off it if and put your own around in. The science won’t be changed. Evolution is not inherently anti God. EVEN IF it were presented wrapped up in anti-God rhetoric (it wasn’t when it was proposed, tho some like Dawkins may try to use it thus), the science is still science which you have said you have no problem with, so just take the philosophy you don’t like away. Just because someone who proposed something didn’t believe something compatible with Christianity it does not mean his ideas are wrong. As I was saying earlier, take Archimedes. Was Archimedes’ principle inherently pagan? No. If Darwin were a nihilist, is Darwinian evolution inherently nihilistic? No.

So I guess what I am really trying to figure out is how does a Christian reconcile a nihilistic idea to Christianity. How is meaning and person-hood brought into an idea that was and still is used to oppose these things?

Evolution isn’t nihilistic. “Strong” atheism would be. Just because “strong” atheists try and use evolution to make statements about God doesn’t mean evolution itself makes statements about God. Evolution is no more anti-God or nihilistic than the tommy guns used by Al Capone’s gang were anti-Prohibitionist.

I hope this helps and that you understand it as clearly as I did when I wrote it. I’m... not always the best getting across certain ideas. LOL

Metherion

gluadys · #13 15th September 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by angrylittlefisherman

want to try and point out the source of the controversy as I understand it. That matter is really one of a theological/philosophical matter, whether that is something recognized by the typical young earth creationist fundegelical Christian.

It is good that you recognize that the heart of your concern is really a theological/philosophical matter. That means it is not really about evolution. And this is the normal case when people have concerns about evolution and Christianity. It turns out that their concern is not really about evolution, but about some theological/philosophical matter. The real question then is "Does science in general or evolution in particular really say anything about this theological/philosophical matter?" In most cases, the answer is "No".

I have found that Darwin's theory is argued against on a purely scientific playing field,

Not successfully. Most alleged scientific objections to the theory of evolution have been dealt with by real science. You can check many of them out on talkorigins Index to Creationist Claims. If there are one or two that you think are particularly forceful raise them here and I am sure someone will be able to explain them. (btw I am assuming you do not mean Darwin's original theory. That did have some real scientific problems, especially as he had a totally incorrect view of heredity.)

most people forget that true science is never absolute. Good science never promises or speaks in exclusively absolute terms ex. "This ball will fall every time I drop it." That would be bad science. What it seems to come down to when the "scientific" argument occurs is that most theories can be interpreted in many different fashions and appear to be reality.

That is not really the case. Most science cannot be interpreted in many different fashions. Don't confuse a limiting case with a different interpretation. "This ball will fall every time I drop it." is absolutely true as long as gravity is a property of physical existence and the ball and I are in a gravitational field. The only occasion on which it would not fall is if we are in the zero gravity of space. That is not a different interpretation. It depends on the same understanding of physics both on earth (or any other body of massive gravity) and in space. It recognizes that the same physical properties are being expressed in different circumstances with different results.

What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root. Darwin's theory was developed at a moment in History when humanism and atheism were really becoming quite popular or mainstream. Nietzsche lived practically at the same time. So what concerns me more about the issue is that it was an action in a sense driven by a desire to replace God, to kill Him if you will. So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.
So I guess what I am really trying to figure out is how does a Christian reconcile a nihilistic idea to Christianity. How is meaning and person-hood brought into an idea that was and still is used to oppose these things?

A scientific theory in and of itself is judged by how well it explains observations. It wouldn't matter at all if Darwin was a nihilist (he wasn't, not even after he lost his faith); his science could still be correct. Just because a person has some beliefs we don't agree with doesn't make them wrong about everything. For example, algebra was invented by Muslims, and geometry by pagan Greeks. Does that mean a Christian cannot properly study them?

No, of course, we cannot reconcile a nihilistic idea with Christianity. But evolution as science is not nihilistic just because Nietzsche was. The only question relevant to evolution is whether it is good science. Christians can always accept good science whatever the beliefs of those who discovered it. Science, after all, is a discipline of discovering what is true about created reality. Whether such a discovery is made by a Christian or a non-Christian is irrelevant, since in the course of things it will not gain standing in the scientific community if it does not work for all scientists whatever their beliefs.

To sum up, the point is not what mind-set gave rise to the idea of evolution, but whether evolution works as science. Does it actually make sense of what we observe? Is it actually supported by the evidence? Does it correctly predict what we will observe? And does it do so equally for every observer regardless of personal mind-set? If the answer to these questions is "yes" (and it is) then evolution is a genuine insight into what is true about created reality, no matter where it originally came from.

Please forgive me, I am sure that I am annoying you all, but this is something that I am having a lot of trouble understanding, and I think that this topic is something one must have a handle on.

Actually, it is a delight to get serious questions from a person who is really thinking about these issues.

angrylittlefisherman · #14 15th September 2009, 03:44 PM

Thank you for your frankness, it is appreciated.
I think I may have not been too clear in my earlier post. My apologies. I do not reject any idea or theory based on ad hominem. At least I try very hard not too. What concerns me is the motivations. I do not reject geometry because it was invented by pagans, but I cannot freely accept a theory used to deny the metaphysical entirely. While Darwin himself may not have been an atheist, it was atheists (which is nihilism) who generally (though admittedly not all) use this theory to "prove" that God does not exist. Now I used the phrase Darwin's theory to try to define a theory that was rejected initially by Christianity and applauded and embraced by anti-theists. However Darwins original theory has been changed since its introduction to the world. I guess my question could be answered by Metherion, you said wrap your own philosophy around it and unwrap the atheist philosophy from it, is truth so pliable? Can any theology or preferred philosophy be wrapped around anything so easily as you make it sound?
Now no one has attempted to address the my difficulty with Luddites statement

"All of those things have to do with what is between humans and God.

Evolution says nothing about it, because evolution says only something about how humans are made up and came about in a biological way. Nothing else."

If God is the infinite summation of all existence and being, the sustain-er of life, than how can God have nothing to do with this as Luddite appears to be saying?

Mallon · #15 15th September 2009, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by angrylittlefisherman

While Darwin himself may not have been an atheist, it was atheists (which is nihilism) who generally (though admittedly not all) use this theory to "prove" that God does not exist.

And they're wrong in doing so. Such a position is just as silly as saying gravity, not God, holds the planets in orbit. If a Christian can accept the theory of gravity, then a Christian can accept the theory of evolution. They are derived using the same principles.

If God is the infinite summation of all existence and being, the sustain-er of life, than how can God have nothing to do with this as Luddite appears to be saying?

The quote you cited doesn't say God has nothing to do with evolution. It says evolution concerns only the natural aspects of how biodiversity came to be. Whether God was involved or not is beyond what science can tell us. For that, we turn to theology. We wouldn't use a measuring tape to hammer in a nail, and we shouldn't use science to tell us what only theology can.

gluadys · #16 15th September 2009, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by angrylittlefisherman

Thank you for your frankness, it is appreciated.
I think I may have not been too clear in my earlier post. My apologies. I do not reject any idea or theory based on ad hominem. At least I try very hard not too. What concerns me is the motivations. I do not reject geometry because it was invented by pagans, but I cannot freely accept a theory used to deny the metaphysical entirely.

Remember, it is not the theory that denies the metaphysical. It is used by some to deny the metaphysical. The problem is in the misuse of the theory, not in the theory itself. So there is no contradiction in being positive toward the evolution while being negative to the way it has been misused to deny the metaphysical.

Just as there is no contradiction in affirming the Christian faith while rejecting the way it has been misused to justify slavery, suppression of women, torture and war. We know these are abuses of Christian teaching that do not taint the reality of Christ's message. Why can we not treat evolution in the same way? It is not tainted by the way some mistreat it and wrongly use it.

By all means, condemn the misuse of the theory of evolution. But don't reject evolution itself because of it. Evolution itself bears no more blame than a brick that was used to break a window.

Now I used the phrase Darwin's theory to try to define a theory that was rejected initially by Christianity and applauded and embraced by anti-theists.

But it was not initially rejected by Christianity. That is a falsehood that was also created by anti-theists. It fit their own conception of a "warfare" between science and faith.

Christians were some of the first supporters of Darwin's theory. Asa Gray, a devout evangelical Christian, warmly supported and defended Darwin's theory at Harvard, while the Deist Louis Agassiz rejected it. Aubrey Moore, an Anglo-Catholic leader of the Oxford Movement, warmly welcomed Darwin's theory, in part as a defence against the latent Deism of Paley's "Natural Theology". It is worth noting too, that Darwin is buried in Westminster Cathedral, hardly where one would find a person the Church considered a heretic and enemy of the faith. David Livingstone has written an interesting book on early Christian reaction (both positive and negative) to Darwin's theory called "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders".

However Darwins original theory has been changed since its introduction to the world. I guess my question could be answered by Metherion, you said wrap your own philosophy around it and unwrap the atheist philosophy from it, is truth so pliable? Can any theology or preferred philosophy be wrapped around anything so easily as you make it sound?

It is not the truth that is pliable, but philosophy. And if a philosophy as defective as atheism can be "wrapped around" evolution, how much more so can Christian truth be used to swaddle any truth pertaining to creation?

Now no one has attempted to address the my difficulty with Luddites statement

"All of those things have to do with what is between humans and God.

Evolution says nothing about it, because evolution says only something about how humans are made up and came about in a biological way. Nothing else."

If God is the infinite summation of all existence and being, the sustain-er of life, than how can God have nothing to do with this as Luddite appears to be saying?

Luddite will have to speak for himself, but I didn't take his meaning as that God had nothing to do with biology, but that the theory of evolution has nothing to say beyond biology.

Mallon · #17 15th September 2009, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

It is worth noting too, that Darwin is buried in Westminster Cathedral

I'm going there next week!

Luddite · #18 16th September 2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Luddite will have to speak for himself, but I didn't take his meaning as that God had nothing to do with biology, but that the theory of evolution has nothing to say beyond biology.

You are right. We have to see God as continuously creating in and through the natural world, since all of creation is Gods work, including abiogenesis and evolution. However, evolution as a scientific theory doesn't thereby go beyond the natural sciences; it remains a theory that explains natural causes in science, and therefore, is not the business of theology.

In the same way, geology doesn't dictate theology, even though the creation of the earth is the work of God, and astrophysics doesn't dictate theology either, even though the creation of the entire universe and it's workings is Gods work.

We have to separate science, which is the methodological investigation of natural causes, and theology, which is the understanding of how we as humans relate to God and creation.