Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Laodicean60]

Still no cure for it is there?...
Did evolution help find the cure for aids?

When metabolic science evolves they will.

 

[tonychanyt]

Oh! I'm sorry! I misread what you said and answered a completely different question! I thought you were asking me why I believe what I believe not on what i think the origin of life is I apologize.

Proposition 1 would be that God created the universe and everything in it and that if
Evolution is true that it was in fact, God that started evolution and was not some random chance. Because one thing is definitely clear from scripture and that's that God created the universe and that explains the origin of life and why we are all here giving a definitive answer as to the origin of life and not a guess. This is where I think both of us agree. Beyond that, evolution is at best a guess as to how we came to be and tries to explain how we got here without a creator God. The universe and everything in it was created about six-ten thousand years ago in six literal days as the Jewish calander and imo the Bible proves when you have a literal interpretation of scripture and dont just take scripture verse by verse butnsee what the whole Bible has to say on the subject. I generally trust the Bible because it has been proven time and time again to be an accurate portrayal of Jewish/world history and has never been completely disproven as a whole or really, at all. In fact, every battle in the Old Testament is proven to have really happened like King Cyrus conquering Babylon in 539 BC. Every "problem" with scripture can be disproven by taking the Bible literally and as a whole vs just debating one verse that was originally in a different language than English and has translation mistakes because you cant get a 100% accurate English translation from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and the Bible should be debated by the original manuscripts and not by an English translation.

Two, like I stated above I generally don't believe in Evolution because there isn't enough Biblical or scientific evidence yet to prove the concept beyond any doubt. In fact, evolution contradicts the Biblical account of creation for several reasons beyond what i stated above and if in fact evolution is true it should match scripture not completely contradict it. A scientific fact like DNA or how we get sick as two examples should be believed because it can be replicated and has been proven beyond ANY doubt and is also proven to match scripture. But science that cannot be replicated should be treated with caution because it's generally a theory and not completely proven and honestly evolution cannot be replicated or EVER proven beyond any doubt so it should be treated in schools and by the world as a theory as to the origin of life and not scientific fact. I'm not saying that Creationism should be taught in schools (although i do believe that both should be taught in schools and both be treated as theories as to the origin of life because you cannot force people to believe the Bible) but merely that the world generally treats a theory as scientific fact

I just realized I could have shortened this by using chatgpt but I've already posted it and you've likely already read/skimmed through it.

You need to provide two sentences that contradict. It will help you to think more precisely.

 

[Laodicean60]

Yes, a literal reading of Genesis and the theory of evolution are incompatible for a number of reasons.

I agree so why do it? Who did Cain marry in Nod and build a city, for whom? I see the bible as a story of Jesus and I believe that the story starts with Jesus's bloodline.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I must not be making myself clear, since your responses here don't seem to have anything to do with what I've written. I'm not talking about the miracles described in the Bible. I'm talking about the countless things that would have had to be created, not to make a mature world, but a world with a false history. All of the layers of sedimentary rock that were never actually sediment, all of the fossils of creatures that never existed, all of the cooled lava from eruptions that never happened.

I'm assuming they were, in this scenario. What does that have to do with my point? You can't get current human genetic diversity from a single pair of recent ancestors.

First off, I acknowledge there's a dilemma in terms of our human understanding between scripture and what we at least perceive as scientific evidence. The OP I think understands the dilemma, thus this thread he created.

A common theme (accusation) aimed at biblical creationists (or literal creationists) is that whatever apparent dilemma we can't answer, we take the easy route, and just write the problem off as a miracle, or the supernatural. And yes, I honestly don't have an issue with the same thing(s) you do.

The OP has linked to a very interesting model which includes 2 key individuals, namely Adam and Eve. The bible doesn't get into specifics concerning what have been labeled common ancestors like the Neanderthals, but I can at least be open to the possibility of his model.

There are a number of people who post here like yourself who proclaim to be Christians who's arguments mirror those of the common Darwinian evolutionist (is that an appropriate term?), who are often atheists who don't take anything written in the bible seriously in terms of reality. At least it's easy to know where they're coming from. And I'm not implying that you, or any theistic evolutionist at this forum are not Christians.

Forgive me where I may have misunderstood you, but your profession of being a Christian is why I've been asking about your views on bible miracles (whether off subject or not). Matching Darwinian evolution with scripture creates a dilemma. The idea conflicts with God placing first humans on earth for a specific reason as opposed to random. It conflicts with an obvious genealogy presented in scripture.

So naturally I'm going to wonder where you as a Christian stand on these obvious dilemmas.

 

[sfs]

There are a number of people who post here like yourself who proclaim to be Christians who's arguments mirror those of the common Darwinian evolutionist

Scientific arguments are generally the same regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the scientists making the arguments. It's one of the strengths of science that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists all get the same answers.

(is that an appropriate term?)

Not really. 'Darwinian', if its used at all, refers to a subset of evolution (adaptive evolution via natural selection) rather than all of evolution, and 'evolutionist' is used almost exclusively by opponents of evolution. What's your term for people who accept a spherical Earth? Sphericist? But this is of no importance -- I know what you mean.

A common theme (accusation) aimed at biblical creationists (or literal creationists) is that whatever apparent dilemma we can't answer, we take the easy route, and just write the problem off as a miracle, or the supernatural. And yes, I honestly don't have an issue with the same thing(s) you do.

Recall what prompted me to join this conversation. It was this statement from you: "I think Darwinian evolution is an unnecessary compromise. There's a certain amount of pressure to accept it if one wants to be considered a part of upper crest mainstream society." My point then and now is that scientists accept evolution because it works: it successfully explains and predicts an enormous range of data. Special creation does not. To the extent that special creation makes any predictions, they're grossly wrong. Now it is entirely possible to rescue this discordance by invoking as many miracles as necessary, where the effect of every miracle was to make the universe look exactly like evolution were true. If, for you, a belief that Genesis has to be an accurate, literal account of the history of Earth trumps everything else, then by all means believe that. But don't kid yourself that scientists accept evolution because of social pressure.

Forgive me where I may have misunderstood you, but your profession of being a Christian is why I've been asking about your views on bible miracles (whether off subject or not). Matching Darwinian evolution with scripture creates a dilemma. The idea conflicts with God placing first humans on earth for a specific reason as opposed to random. It conflicts with an obvious genealogy presented in scripture.

I don't see any dilemma, since I read the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a theological reworking (actually two different reworkings with very different ends in mind) of then-contemporary mythic and legendary material. This reworking no doubt served multiple purposes, but I see no reason to thing that any of them included giving a scientific account of the origin of the Earth or of humans. This is has nothing to do with evolution being true -- that's what I understand the text to be based on reading the text.

 

[Fervent]

I agree so why do it? Who did Cain marry in Nod and build a city, for whom? I see the bible as a story of Jesus and I believe that the story starts with Jesus's bloodline.

I don't try to rectify the two. I see Biblical exegesis as a distinct and separate discipline from "natural science," and don't really care which gives the true history of the universe. My faith begins with the resurrection, and I am willing to take the Biblical text at as much of face value as possible because of its theological value. I don't have the expertise to comment one way or the other on the nitty gritty of evolution, but I assume the people who study it have a pretty good grasp on the fossil record and the like to give a mechanistic history of the universe. How the Biblical story fits with natural history is beyond my ken, and exploring that aspect has little interest to me because I don't see how it would impact my life decisions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am a Christian and worked evolution. I used the evolution model to implement AI programs. They are called evolutionary algorithms. You don't have to believe in evolution to work with it. If you search US patents in the last ten years, you will find many applications of evolution models. The theory of evolution has practical values. The US economy benefits from it. You cannot deny its utility.

Yes. Turns out, evolution works by pretty much the same universal laws as the rest of nature. As a biologist, I'm fascinated by the way engineers have been able to adapt evolutionary processes to solve complex engineering problems. When I was in graduate school, they called them "genetic algorithms", but maybe it's different in IT.

Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organizations​

Amazon.com

Worth a look. This one assumes no more mathematical knowledge on the part of the reader beyond high school algebra. And even that isn't strictly necessary to understand the author's points.

Unlike other branches of hard sciences, there is not as much mathematical justification for Evolution. Nevertheless, it is a useful paradigm.

Principles of Population Genetics, Fourth Edition, is a thoroughly updated introduction to the field that is at last ascending to its rightful position of centrality to evolutionary genomics and human genetics. Rapid and inexpensive genotyping and sequencing have produced a profusion of data on genetic variation, along with a pressing need to inform students from many fields about the models that describe the underlying processes that give rise to observed patterns of genetic variation. This book provides a balanced presentation of theory and observation for students at the undergraduate and graduate levels as well as newcomers from fields like human genetics. The logical development of the models of population genetics encourages a deeper understanding of the principles, and the text has been rewritten with the goal to optimize its use as a teaching aid. It introduces the principles of genetics and statistics that are relevant to population studies, and examines the forces affecting genetic variation from the molecular to the organismic level. Integrated throughout the book are descriptions of molecular methods used to study variation in natural populations, as well as explanations of the relevant estimation theory using actual data.

Principles of Population Genetics - Daniel L. Hartl; Andrew G. Clark: 9780878933082 - AbeBooks

Principles of Population Genetics by Daniel L. Hartl; Andrew G. Clark - ISBN 10: 0878933085 - ISBN 13: 9780878933082 - Sinauer Associates is an imprint of Oxford University Press - 2006 - Hardcover

www.abebooks.com

Enough math to make my head hurt, sometimes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientific arguments are generally the same regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the scientists making the arguments. It's one of the strengths of science that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists all get the same answers.

Today's winner.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't have the expertise to comment one way or the other on the nitty gritty of evolution, but I assume the people who study it have a pretty good grasp on the fossil record and the like to give a mechanistic history of the universe. How the Biblical story fits with natural history is beyond my ken, and exploring that aspect has little interest to me because I don't see how it would impact my life decisions.

Well said. Are you familiar with Gerald Aardsma and his "virtual history" explanation of the evidence? Not that it matters to faith, as you seem to understand.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Scientific arguments are generally the same regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the scientists making the arguments. It's one of the strengths of science that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists all get the same answers.

For the most part. But it may divide at times when discussion of the divine steps in.

Not really. 'Darwinian', if its used at all, refers to a subset of evolution (adaptive evolution via natural selection) rather than all of evolution, and 'evolutionist' is used almost exclusively by opponents of evolution. What's your term for people who accept a spherical Earth? Sphericist? But this is of no importance -- I know what you mean.

Okay. I didn't want to mislabel anyone.

Recall what prompted me to join this conversation. It was this statement from you: "I think Darwinian evolution is an unnecessary compromise. There's a certain amount of pressure to accept it if one wants to be considered a part of upper crest mainstream society." My point then and now is that scientists accept evolution because it works: it successfully explains and predicts an enormous range of data. Special creation does not. To the extent that special creation makes any predictions, they're grossly wrong. Now it is entirely possible to rescue this discordance by invoking as many miracles as necessary, where the effect of every miracle was to make the universe look exactly like evolution were true. If, for you, a belief that Genesis has to be an accurate, literal account of the history of Earth trumps everything else, then by all means believe that. But don't kid yourself that scientists accept evolution because of social pressure.

That's not what I meant.

For starters, concerning the underlined portion, scripture works! Or, the Word of God works. Reading and applying scripture, along with prayer and divine guidance, and applying faith is and has been the avenue which lead many believers into their field of work and/or ministry. The avenue which forced me out of a form of drug addiction. Can we say applying scripture is a form of science? I'm not really sure, but at least we may be able to apply a term, maybe more of a catch phrase though, the science of (applying scripture).

For the most part, this applying scripture, praying/divine guidance, advice/guidance from mature fellow believers involves literal application of scripture. I can't think of where it wouldn't. So if say, a young believer out of high school who has learned to apply scripture as a lifestyle who takes Genesis as literal goes into college, they may experience pressure to abandon Genesis as a literal so as to fit in with the intellectual crowd.

I'm not talking about the scientist who objectively acknowledges evolution.

I don't see any dilemma, since I read the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a theological reworking (actually two different reworkings with very different ends in mind) of then-contemporary mythic and legendary material. This reworking no doubt served multiple purposes, but I see no reason to thing that any of them included giving a scientific account of the origin of the Earth or of humans. This is has nothing to do with evolution being true -- that's what I understand the text to be based on reading the text.

I Would say it's true that Genesis is not a science book. What the Bible reveals along the way, from the O.T. to the N.T., is that there are what might be called a Kairos moment, where God makes a special intervention into a situation or event on Earth. A sort of extension of Heaven into/upon Earth. It can happen to an individual (like salvation), a small group of people (the Apostle Paul and his band along the road to Damascus), a large group of people (Joshua's longest day battle). Time might be, or seem to be altered in any of these instances, as God's timeless domain so to speak has intervened in our planet confined to time.

Earth and the Universe, assuming ex-nihilo creation might fall into this category, as an outside agent (God the Creator) has created (and intervened into) our world confined to time. So to say science doesn't disprove an ex-nihilo creation, yet disproves any miracle/supernatural event after creation including removal of evidence of a global flood, and mature-creation may be contradictory. If a Christian believes in evolution because a six day creation suggests a false/deceiving history, along with an Adam and Eve, they have to accept the creation of 2 adults that would also give a false history to the many descendants who would be born while Adam and Eve were still alive. And we could also say ex-nihilo creation has been disproved because no one/thing we know of can accomplish it.

 

[Fervent]

Well said. Are you familiar with Gerald Aardsma and his "virtual history" explanation of the evidence? Not that it matters to faith, as you seem to understand.

I've never heard of that approach, and if I understand the gist of it from a brief google search it's very inventive but I'm not sure I see the value in such speculation since critics would simply see it as an unnecessary and unverifiable additional hypothesis. My personal approach is to ignore the Biblical story when looking at science, and to ignore any scientific theory that is unnecessary for understanding a particular text when practicing theology. I think there's far too much optimism in what we can discover using reason and sense data, as I see creation as an icon of the Creator and as such it will ultimately remain a mystery to be prodded at but never solved. So science is great because it is useful in developing tools to manipulate the universe, but it must be supplemented by philosophy or theology. And since philosophy usually involves just spinning our wheels, I prefer to limit it as much as possible. Where I run into issues with modernity and post-modernity is I'm still holding to theology as foundational, with philosophy branching from it and science from philosophy.

 

[The Barbarian]

My personal approach is to ignore the Biblical story when looking at science, and to ignore any scientific theory that is unnecessary for understanding a particular text when practicing theology.

A rather sensible approach, I think.

I think there's far too much optimism in what we can discover using reason and sense data, as I see creation as an icon of the Creator and as such it will ultimately remain a mystery to be prodded at but never solved. So science is great because it is useful in developing tools to manipulate the universe, but it must be supplemented by philosophy or theology.

Yes. Sometimes, people don't get this, and try to extend those ways of knowing inappropriately.

Where I run into issues with modernity and post-modernity is I'm still holding to theology as foundational, with philosophy branching from it and science from philosophy.

Science comes from practice and failure, and learning from it. No philosopher figured out how to make a steam engine. But a follower of Archimedes, Heron of Alexandria did it. It's possible to have a rather advanced technology with little or not recourse to theology, but the closer we get to the details, the more theological (and the more uncertain) it seems to get.

 

[The Barbarian]

I Would say it's true that Genesis is not a science book. What the Bible reveals along the way, from the O.T. to the N.T., is that there are what might be called a Kairos moment, where God makes a special intervention into a situation or event on Earth.

We should note that this is done not because God was unable to create things so that they would serve His purposes, but in order to teach us something. He doesn't need to tinker with nature to make it work. The tipping point could be a great battle, or it could just be a large number of people who had to be fed somehow. But there's always a lesson for us.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Have you never heard of the 7-day temple inauguration view of old earthers?

I have and it was quite intriguing but lacking when it came to proving evolution from a Biblical or scientific prespective. Like I said and everybody might agree with me, if Evolution matched up with scripture this would never be an issue of debate but because evolution contradicts what divine Revelation Moses was given by God Christiand will ALWAYS debate this topic and neither can be fully proven because we werent there when God created
everything. Similar to debating the existence of Jesus because there is only as much evidence for Jesus as there are for any other figure of history. Don't get me wrong, Jesus DID exist and every Christian should and has to believe this but they cant be fully proven because all we have is accounts from people who ljved during that era.

We believe in these figures from history because of the written evidence and firsthand accounts from people who WERE there.

Like I said, DNA im on board and every other replicatable and proven method of science that also aligns with the Bible I 100% agree is proven fact. But this? Not so much. But Christians will always debate about this topic and neither side will probably never be fully proven until Jesus returns. Until then we should all admit that God created the universe whether through the big bang or through the creationist view, it was God who caused it to happen. If you deny this I can't see how you can carry the legitimate label of Christian.

 

[Neostarwcc]

You need to provide two sentences that contradict. It will help you to think more precisely.

Yeah that's hard for me because like you probably have guessed I like to talk.

Ok.

1. God created the universe and everything in it in six literal days approximately 6000-10000 years ago.

2. There isn't enough scientific evidence yet to prove this concept beyond any doubt like other replicable and proven science.

 

[tonychanyt]

Yeah that's hard for me because like you probably have guessed I like to talk.

Ok.

1. God created the universe and everything in it in six literal days approximately 6000-10000 years ago.

True, according to witnessed-time.

2. There isn't enough scientific evidence yet to prove this concept beyond any doubt like other replicable and proven science.

Scientific evidence relies on space-time, not witnessed-time.

These two propositions assume two different concepts of time. They are both true with respect to their own framework of time.

I hope this clarifies. Feel free to follow up

 

[sfs]

For the most part. But it may divide at times when discussion of the divine steps in.

Discussion of the divine doesn't step into scientific results.

For starters, concerning the underlined portion, scripture works! Or, the Word of God works.

The Bible does not work for doing science. At all. (Also, note that treating the Bible as equivalent to the word of God is unbiblical. In the Bible, the word of God is a message, like a prophetic message, from God or the gospel, not a canonical written text.)

Reading and applying scripture, along with prayer and divine guidance, and applying faith is and has been the avenue which lead many believers into their field of work and/or ministry. The avenue which forced me out of a form of drug addiction.

Great!

Can we say applying scripture is a form of science?

Have you done a controlled test with other religious traditions and the application of their scriptures?

 

[The Barbarian]

Like I said, DNA im on board and every other replicatable and proven method of science that also aligns with the Bible I 100% agree is proven fact. But this? Not so much. But Christians will always debate about this topic and neither side will probably never be fully proven until Jesus returns. Until then we should all admit that God created the universe whether through the big bang or through the creationist view, it was God who caused it to happen. If you deny this I can't see how you can carry the legitimate label of Christian.

That's the key. No matter how He did it, He created the universe. And that's what matters.

 

[Fervent]

Science comes from practice and failure, and learning from it. No philosopher figured out how to make a steam engine. But a follower of Archimedes, Heron of Alexandria did it. It's possible to have a rather advanced technology with little or not recourse to theology, but the closer we get to the details, the more theological (and the more uncertain) it seems to get.

If we limit science to a descriptive and technological art, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But when it transitions from descriptions to explanations there are theological and philosophical issues that must be dealt with prior to our sense observations. When these questions and presuppositions are ignored it doesn't make them go away, it just means that a position is adopted without criticism.

 

[The Barbarian]

If we limit science to a descriptive and technological art, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But when it transitions from descriptions to explanations there are theological and philosophical issues that must be dealt with prior to our sense observations.

Depends on how deep the explanations run. For example, the Constructal law explains how rivers, crowds, evolution, trees, etc form and change. No philosophical or theological explanations needed. But if you ask "why are the physical laws of this universe established in such a way as to make all this wonder and complexity happen by natural processes?", then one must look to theological explanations.

Darwin explained how populations of living things change over time, in a simple and mechanistic way. And it works very well. But again, the deeper question as to why the world is so organized to produce these wonders, that's beyond science.