Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

I'd recommend the following video to help reveal some of the old testament context related to death before the fall:

I did not say I had a problem with death. I said I had a problem with brutal or meaningless death or random mutations.

A cat eating a mouse is one thing. A cat torturing and killing a mouse and then not eating it is another.
A mouse dying to feed the cat is one thing. A mouse starving to death because it did not have the genetic advantage of it's brother and there was not enough food to go around is another.

So again, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Job 33:6]

Today is after the fall. Creation was before the fall. I don't have a problem with allowing evolution. I have a problem with the part of the evolution theory that says that creation was not a careful crafting but some random process.

But you are ok with God allowing random processes, such as with the lottery. Which means that there's a logical disconnect here. Why can God allow one random process, but not another?

None of that could have happened until AFTER the fall, because before the fall God looked at creation and said "this is very good". If God created evil and looked at it and called it good - that's a house divided.

Psalm 104, the old testament actually says nothing about "very good" having to do with immortality of life. On the contrary it says many things about death being a normal and anticipated aspect of Gods creation.

Psalm 104, The tree of life, subdue and rule. These are all areas of the Bible that run against your ideas. Subdue and Rule for example, the instruction given to Adam and Eve, are universally used as harsh terms with respect to war conquest. That doesn't imply a world without death. Psalm 104, the psalmist talks all about Gods good creation, then mentions God providing lions their prey and doesn't blink an eye, as if he somehow forgot that death was a bad thing? The tree of life becomes meaningless in a world with immortal beings etc.

It's much easier to just conclude that very good meant "its working correctly", not that life was immortal. I can mow my lawn, and it can be "very good" when I'm done, but that doesn't mean that the ant that got caught in the propellers was indestructible.

We are just arguing two opinions here Job 33:6. And this has nothing to do with the original question, we are way off topic now. We had already decided that we can be Christian and believe in aspects of evolution. Which aspects we believe in we agreed to disagree, so let's do that ok?

Either evolution is compatible with the Bible or its not. What you are describing is not evolution. It's not natural selection that runs against Gods character. It's not mutation that runs against Gods character either, nor is it randomness.

What you are concerned about, ultimately, is the problem of evil. That's what you are putting up a fence against. The idea that a good God could create a world with pain and suffering. That's at the core of your concerns. But I'm informing you the theory of evolution is not the problem of evil.

You cant say "Christianity is not compatible with evolution because God said that creation was very good". That's not sufficient given the reasons above.

We can be Christian and can believe in evolution through and through, not just aspects. But it requires a Christian to acknowledge that when God says that creation was "very good", that God isn't talking about whether or not animals were immortal.

 

[Job 33:6]

I did not say I had a problem with death. I said I had a problem with brutal or meaningless death or random mutations.

A cat eating a mouse is one thing. A cat torturing and killing a mouse and then not eating it is another.
A mouse dying to feed the cat is one thing. A mouse starving to death because it did not have the genetic advantage of it's brother and there was not enough food to go around is another.

So again, let's just agree to disagree.

Wait, so you are accepting of physical death before the fall? Is that what you are saying here? If you think death is compatible with "very good" ?

 

[Dan1988]

Please explain how I twisted the meaning of what words.


Right.


Right.


Exactly, my point.

So please explain how I twisted the meaning of what words.

I was referring to some comments you made, regarding scientific theories and what the Bible says about creation. I got the impression that you tried to marry creation with the theory of evolution. My point is, that the two are diametrically opposed and we can't embrace both. We must reject one to accept the other

 

[tonychanyt]

Here is an interesting interview with Roger Penrose on consciousness from New Scientist.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[olgamc]

Wait, so you are accepting of physical death before the fall? Is that what you are saying here? If you think death is compatible with "very good" ?

Sure. In physical sense without death there is no birth, no ecosystem. In theological sense we have to die to sin so that we can have a new life in Christ. One day God will make a new creation where death is no more, but it’s not this creation.

To answer your earlier question - God can allow or disallow anything He wants. Just because He allows a lottery doesn’t mean that He has to allow random harmful mutations. Just because He allows one random harmful mutation does not mean that He allows all of them. He is God, He can do whatever He wants. But He can’t act out of His character.

“either all of evolution or none of it” - that’s an absolute statement. That’s why we get people rejecting all of it, they can’t reconcile the God they know with the theory in its entirety. And why would we even try? Darwin is human, he makes mistakes, and he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit like Moses was.

 

[tonychanyt]

I was referring to some comments you made

Can you quote my words and then explain logically how I twisted the meanings of words?

 

[olgamc]

Wait, so you are accepting of physical death before the fall? Is that what you are saying here? If you think death is compatible with "very good" ?

For plants and animals-yes. But not for people, because Adam and Eve were the only humans and they had access to the tree of life. Without the tree of life they were mortal like all mammals, but the tree of life kept them alive, so as long as they didn’t sin they were immortal. That’s my opinion. I might be wrong.

 

[olgamc]

Can you quote my words and then explain logically how I twisted the meanings of words?

Dan1988 is talking about me, I think.

Tonychanyt, could you please define evolution in “can you be Christian and believe in evolution”?

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. In physical sense without death there is no birth, no ecosystem. In theological sense we have to die to sin so that we can have a new life in Christ. One day God will make a new creation where death is no more, but it’s not this creation.

To answer your earlier question - God can allow or disallow anything He wants. Just because He allows a lottery doesn’t mean that He has to allow random harmful mutations. Just because He allows one random harmful mutation does not mean that He allows all of them. He is God, He can do whatever He wants. But He can’t act out of His character.

“either all of evolution or none of it” - that’s an absolute statement. That’s why we get people rejecting all of it, they can’t reconcile the God they know with the theory in its entirety. And why would we even try? Darwin is human, he makes mistakes, and he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit like Moses was.

So, you're ok with death, but you say, not meaningless or brutal death.

The thing is that, evolution doesn't require that death only be one or the other. Evolution, or random mutations by natural selection, has nothing to do with whether or not a cat plays with its prey before eating it.

"A cat eating a mouse is one thing. A cat torturing and killing a mouse and then not eating it is another."

This has nothing to do with mutations or natural selection. This thing you are describing, is a free will issue. It's not an evolution issue.

Darwin never actually got anything wrong. He proposed that there was natural selection, which there is. He didn't know about DNA, so he didn't propose random mutations or anything like that. (correction, he never talked about mutations).

But either way, this problem you are describing, evil, meaningless death, brutality etc. This isn't evolution. This has nothing to do with mechanisms. The concerns you're describing are theological.

For example, some people talk about Satan fall theodicy. The idea that the fall of Satan occurred before the fall. Not saying that I accept this idea, but such an event, a fall before the fall, would completely flip the table on your position against evolution.

And so, what we are dealing with isn't actually an issue with the theory itself. Your concerns are more theological and hermeneutical.

And what that means is that, if your theology was different, you would not view evolution as incompatible with Christianity. And many Christians have a different theology.

So its not that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. It's that your specific theological perspective on Genesis suggests that its incompatible. And this is something independent of the actual science itself.

 

[Palmfever]

Thanks for the tip.

Welcome

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'd recommend the following video to help reveal some of the old testament context related to death before the fall:

There are no passages in the Old Testament that mention death before the fall.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If God allows death today, there's no reason that God couldn't also allow death in the past, logically speaking.

Actually there is a reason because it would contradict Romans 5 where Paul made it clear that death had not entered into the world until after Adam sinned. So that does actually present a problem with this idea.

 

[tonychanyt]

Tonychanyt, could you please define evolution in “can you be Christian and believe in evolution”?

Good question.

I use the term biologically and technically. Evolution describes the process by which populations of organisms change over time through successive generations. It is driven by mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

I have to ask this question in response, can a person be a Christian if they don’t believe what is written in the Bible?

 

[olgamc]

Good question.

I use the term biologically and technically. Evolution describes the process by which populations of organisms change over time through successive generations. It is driven by mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow.

Thank you.

The thing is that, evolution doesn't require that death only be one or the other. Evolution, or random mutations by natural selection, has nothing to do with whether or not a cat plays with its prey before eating it.

Right about death, and tonychanyt does not make a distinction between random mutations and intentional mutations. You are putting the word random in, assuming that evolution has to necessarily be random. I think it can be random or intentional. The question is, when God was creating the world, was He careful or sloppy? From what you know of God from the Scripture and from your own personal relationship with Him, what do you think?

Cat playing with the mouse is an example of brutal death that I think is evil, and frankly I don't know how much it has to do with evil vs genes, because aren't character traits, or predispositions, encoded into our dna? I am an introvert - that's a dna thing, it's not a choice. I like chocolate - that's a dna thing. The other example that you omitted - mouse starving - is a natural selection process that is evil, and goes against God's character where Jesus says that God provides for birds and flowers and will therefore provide for us his children.

Darwin never actually got anything wrong.

Is that true?

He proposed that there was natural selection, which there is.

Darwin observed the present world and made logical deductions. His logical deductions are not divine, they are human, and therefore they can be wrong.

He didn't know about DNA, so he didn't propose random mutations or anything like that. (correction, he never talked about mutations).

You are actually right. Darwin talked about traits that an animal needed to develop in order to survive. A sort of "learning". That is entirely different from random mutations. And that's a good thing, because like I said, I don't believe that God would have caused random careless mutations. Learning - yes.

But either way, this problem you are describing, evil, meaningless death, brutality etc. This isn't evolution. This has nothing to do with mechanisms. The concerns you're describing are theological.

They are related.

For example, some people talk about Satan fall theodicy. The idea that the fall of Satan occurred before the fall. Not saying that I accept this idea, but such an event, a fall before the fall, would completely flip the table on your position against evolution.

Not at all. Satan's fall had to do with the realm of the angels, which is not physical. Adam's fall had to do with the realm of humans, which is both spiritual and physical. God creates a good creation. God creates a good man. (God is good, so the man made in God's image is also good). God gives man a choice. Man chooses evil. Evil enters creation.

And so, what we are dealing with isn't actually an issue with the theory itself. Your concerns are more theological and hermeneutical.

Like I said before. You can't study creation without Creator.

And what that means is that, if your theology was different, you would not view evolution as incompatible with Christianity. And many Christians have a different theology.

That's why we need to constantly watch out for if our theology is good. Theology is not Scripture. Theology is understanding of Scripture. So Scripture is always correct, but theology can be wrong. Scientific facts can also be wrong because God is the sort of God who can raise Jesus from the dead. If you put your trust only in science and adjust your theology accordingly, than there is no actual physical death and resurrection of Jesus.

So its not that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. It's that your specific theological perspective on Genesis suggests that its incompatible. And this is something independent of the actual science itself.

They are related and they complement each other. You can't study creation without studying the Creator. There is no spiritual salvation and subsequent physical resurrection without Jesus's physical sacrifice, death and resurrection. They are intertwined. There is no passing the sin to a lamb without a spiritual sin and a physical lamb. I don't know how else to say it, but we shouldn't study one without the other. All creation manifests the glory of God.

 

[olgamc]

I have to ask this question in response, can a person be a Christian if they don’t believe what is written in the Bible?

Problem is, we don't believe just what is written in the Bible. We read the Bible and understand it. Understanding or interpretation is a flawed process because we are humans. So you and I can read the exact same passage in the Bible and to you it says one thing and to me another. Which is why we need to be very careful about what we believe and why, and we need the Holy Spirit's guidance.

 

[olgamc]

When Almighty Creator Revealed to Simon bar Jona
that Jesus is the Messiah,
could the Almighty be wrong ?

No. But Simon bar Jona could have been wrong about what he thought the messiah would be like or what the messiah would do.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you.

Right about death, and tonychanyt does not make a distinction between random mutations and intentional mutations. You are putting the word random in, assuming that evolution has to necessarily be random. I think it can be random or intentional. The question is, when God was creating the world, was He careful or sloppy? From what you know of God from the Scripture and from your own personal relationship with Him, what do you think?

Cat playing with the mouse is an example of brutal death that I think is evil, and frankly I don't know how much it has to do with evil vs genes, because aren't character traits, or predispositions, encoded into our dna? I am an introvert - that's a dna thing, it's not a choice. I like chocolate - that's a dna thing. The other example that you omitted - mouse starving - is a natural selection process that is evil, and goes against God's character where Jesus says that God provides for birds and flowers and will therefore provide for us his children.

Is that true?

Darwin observed the present world and made logical deductions. His logical deductions are not divine, they are human, and therefore they can be wrong.

You are actually right. Darwin talked about traits that an animal needed to develop in order to survive. A sort of "learning". That is entirely different from random mutations. And that's a good thing, because like I said, I don't believe that God would have caused random careless mutations. Learning - yes.

They are related.

Not at all. Satan's fall had to do with the realm of the angels, which is not physical. Adam's fall had to do with the realm of humans, which is both spiritual and physical. God creates a good creation. God creates a good man. (God is good, so the man made in God's image is also good). God gives man a choice. Man chooses evil. Evil enters creation.

Like I said before. You can't study creation without Creator.

That's why we need to constantly watch out for if our theology is good. Theology is not Scripture. Theology is understanding of Scripture. So Scripture is always correct, but theology can be wrong. Scientific facts can also be wrong because God is the sort of God who can raise Jesus from the dead. If you put your trust only in science and adjust your theology accordingly, than there is no actual physical death and resurrection of Jesus.

They are related and they complement each other. You can't study creation without studying the Creator. There is no spiritual salvation and subsequent physical resurrection without Jesus's physical sacrifice, death and resurrection. They are intertwined. There is no passing the sin to a lamb without a spiritual sin and a physical lamb. I don't know how else to say it, but we shouldn't study one without the other. All creation manifests the glory of God.

When I say random, I mean that it is random to us because it's too complex for us to model.

If I take a handful of dice and I throw them into the air, I would consider it random, whatever numbers they fall on. However, in reality, physics is at play and there really isn't anything random about it. Unless we get into quantum physics.

We just use random to describe things that we have trouble modeling because they're too complex. But they still have limits. Dice only have so many sides so they aren't truly random at the end of the day.

And randomness does not equate to sloppiness. There is nothing sloppy about the lottery despite the numbers being random. It's actually well planned out and organized.

And I'm not sure that cats can be "evil". Satan is evil. But cats are just cats.

"Not at all. Satan's fall had to do with the realm of the angels, which is not physical."

Well, Satan was in the garden deceiving Eve. Some theologically view his fall as happening before the human fall. But the point I was making is, your concerns don't actually have to do with evolution so much as they are concerns over things like the problem of evil.

And science and faith only compliment each other if you read the Bible as a science concordist. That's a hermeneutical choice. Many people view these as separate things. For example, with Adam being made of dust, some people think that's about science and chemistry, others would simply say that the authors lived in a pre-scientific time and that it has nothing to do with science.

 

[Dan1988]

Can you quote my words and then explain logically how I twisted the meanings of words?

No, I don't think we're going to achieve anything in a long and drawn-out debate. I feel that you have already made up your mind about the subject and I don't believe you would approach it with a view to discover anything new.

I find people who have been given a piece of paper by the college or university, close their minds towards anything that challenges them or threatens their theory.

Thanks for the reply anyway