Evolution and Christianity

Crusadar · Aug 18, 2003

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

Any comments?

wblastyn · Aug 18, 2003

He doesn't know what he's talking about since most Christians accept evolution with no problems. If it destroyed Christianity then Christians wouldn't accept it would they.

Jet Black · Aug 18, 2003

he is an atheist who doesn't seem to realise that science is agnostic and christianity does not require belief in a literal creation. Perhaps he has reached this conclusion because of the number of christians who desperately cling to the premise that the Bible is the literal truth, rather than a theological one. It is a shame when Atheists get sucked into this mentality.

Crusadar · Aug 18, 2003

wblastyn said:
He doesn't know what he's talking about since most Christians accept evolution with no problems. If it destroyed Christianity then Christians wouldn't accept it would they.

Heh, heh - lets have an intelligent discussion this time and not make generalizations we cannot support.

Crusadar · Aug 18, 2003

Jet Black said:
he is an atheist who doesn't seem to realise that science is agnostic and christianity does not require belief in a literal creation. Perhaps he has reached this conclusion because of the number of christians who desperately cling to the premise that the Bible is the literal truth, rather than a theological one. It is a shame when Atheists get sucked into this mentality.

So where do you draw the line when something in scripture is literal and when something is not? If the Bible is true in some parts and not in others how do we know for certain if the parts that are considered true are not really false?

Jet Black · Aug 18, 2003

scripture is a theological message... a guide to get to heaven if you like. you can tell that God uses this method in the parables told by Jesus. the literal truth of what he says is not important - the message is. (oops, sorry, I posted in the CO forum

)

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 18, 2003

Crusadar said:
So where do you draw the line when something in scripture is literal and when something is not? If the Bible is true in some parts and not in others how do we know for certain if the parts that are considered true are not really false?

Two points.

1) Midway through your paragraph you shift from "literal and not" to "true and false". Is this your problem - you don't understand how something can be true without being literal?

2) Does it matter? The lessons and applications for today are the same whether it's literal or not.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

Crusadar said:
Any comments?

Yes. Evidently this guy knows nothing about the history of Christianity.

Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out [against Darwin] are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or else by invoking the odium theologicum In the same letter Kingsley says: the state of the scientific mind is most curiousThey find that now they have got rid of an interfering God -- a master -- magician, as I call it -- they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident, and a living, eminent, ever-working God. Charles Kingsley http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/texts/osborn.pdf

"Fortunately, at about the time when Darwin's Descent of Man was published, there had come into Princeton University ``deus ex machina'' in the person of Dr. James McCosh. Called to the presidency, he at once took his stand against teachings so dangerous to Christianity as those of Drs. Hodge, Duffield, and their associates. In one of his personal confidences he has let us into the secret of this matter. With that hard Scotch sense which Thackeray had applauded in his well-known verses, he saw that the most dangerous thing which could be done to Christianity at Princeton was to reiterate in the university pulpit, week after week, solemn declarations that if evolution by natural selection, or indeed evolution at all, be true, the Scriptures are false. He tells us that he saw that this was the certain way to make the students unbelievers; he therefore not only checked this dangerous preaching but preached an opposite doctrine. With him began the inevitable compromise, and, in spite of mutterings against him as a Darwinian, he carried the day. Whatever may be thought of his general system of philosophy, no one can deny his great service in neutralizing the teachings of his predecessors and colleagues - so dangerous to all that is essential in Christianity. " http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/creation/final-effort.html

Any comments?

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

Crusadar said:
So where do you draw the line when something in scripture is literal and when something is not? If the Bible is true in some parts and not in others how do we know for certain if the parts that are considered true are not really false?

I agree with Karl. Nice sleight of hand here. In the first sentence you have literal and not literal. In the second sentence you deftly equate literal to true and non-literal to false.

1. What do you do about the parables of Jesus. NONE of them are literal, but do you then think they are not true?

2. What do you do with Luke 2:1? "ALL the world was taxed". Don't you know that this is not literal. Don't you know that Japanese, Sioux, and Laplanders were not taxed? How do you know this?

3. What do you do with Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5? Plain Hebrew that the earth does not move. Yet don't you know that the earth goes around the sun? That it moves?

When you answer those questions you will be able to answer both of yours. You will know how we decide that some passages are not literal and you will be able to tell the difference from "literally" true and theologically true.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

Crusadar said:
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

Notice that Bozarth has Jesus dying for OUR sins. Yours and mine. Not Adam's. Not Moses'. Not Noah's. So, how does evolution mean that WE do not sin? Isn't sin disobeying God and/or hurting out fellow humans? Can't we do that just as well if we evolved from an ape-like ancestor as if we were spoken into existence?

Adam and Eve are NOT destroyed by evolution. They are still the allegorical archetypes that stand for you and me. BOZARTH's man-made doctrine of original sin is in trouble, but Christianity isn't.

Vance · Aug 18, 2003

This is also a typical YEC trick of tying evolution to the destruction of original sin and Jesus' redemption, thus striking the strongest cord of Christianity. The problem comes with layers of faulty interpretation layered upon one another.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

Vance said:
This is also a typical YEC trick of tying evolution to the destruction of original sin and Jesus' redemption, thus striking the strongest cord of Christianity. The problem comes with layers of faulty interpretation layered upon one another.

The "trick" was tying literal to "true" and non-literal to "false". Otherwise I'm not sure it's a trick or a sincere belief on the part of YECers. It could be a debating trick, or it could be one of their legitimate fears.

If a fear, that fear does arise from their faulty interpretation, as you say. What always puzzles me is that, if you can get rid of the fear by changing the interpretation without harming Christianity (which you can), then why not change the interpretation?

Unfortunately, that brings us to the psychology of YECers and a stubborness to cling to a faulty interpretation. I am afraid that all the answers I find point to severe theological deficiencies. Deficiencies sufficient to get them cut off from God.

Vance · Aug 18, 2003

Yes, you are right, I think it does arise out of a sincere belief (and that belief is, indeed, based on fear, whether conscious or not). I did not mean to suggest that they are using debating tricks knowingly (although some do, I am sure).

The reason why they must go to absurd extremes rather than accept that their interpretation is wrong is primarily their fear of the "slippery slope". This comes in two interrelated flavors:

First, if their interpretation here is wrong, that calls into question all of their interpretations.

Second, if you change any position based on evidence given by the "World" or, even worse, "Science" in particular, then you are compromising or weakening and once you give in on one point, you will eventually give in on all of them.

The whole "slippery slope" argument is a very sad one. This means that if they are at the top of the slope, and the truth is halfway down the slope, they will never get to the truth for fear of sliding right past it and heading off into error. I say: get better climbing gear.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

Vance said:
The whole "slippery slope" argument is a very sad one. This means that if they are at the top of the slope, and the truth is halfway down the slope, they will never get to the truth for fear of sliding right past it and heading off into error. I say: get better climbing gear.

Nicely put! So how do we help them get better climbing gear?

The reason why they must go to absurd extremes rather than accept that their interpretation is wrong is primarily their fear of the "slippery slope". This comes in two interrelated flavors:

First, if their interpretation here is wrong, that calls into question all of their interpretations.

Second, if you change any position based on evidence given by the "World" or, even worse, "Science" in particular, then you are compromising or weakening and once you give in on one point, you will eventually give in on all of them.

First, we can show other passages where they don't take a literal interpretation -- Luke 2:1 for instance -- and that doesn't cause them to question their interpretation of Genesis 1.

Second, we can demonstrate that a literal interpretation has been shown to be wrong before by extrabiblical evidence -- flat earth and geocentrism (and evolution) -- and Christianity has survived. How do we reassure them that there are some points -- such as the Resurrection -- that science simply can't touch?

Vance · Aug 18, 2003

The problem is dealing with the underlying (subconscious?) fear that is involved. It is very powerful. I think you are on the right track regarding the reassurances.

One thing to point out is that while God can and does "over-ride" his own natural laws when it fits His purpose (as with all the miracles described in the Bible), those natural laws are still there and discoverable by science. These laws, if understood correctly, can explain the past and predict the future in EVERY case except those in which God purposefully chose to over-ride them. The natural world was created by God and does not lie to us, but it can never disprove any event in which a supernatural force was involved since such action is just that: "super"-natural.

The study of science is just the effort to determine what happens when there *is* no supernatural intervention. If the conclusion is that evolution happens unless there is a supernatural intervention, then we should take that seriously and ask ourselves to what extent the Scripture states *without doubt* that a supernatural overriding of this natural process took place.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

Vance said:
The problem is dealing with the underlying (subconscious?) fear that is involved. It is very powerful. I think you are on the right track regarding the reassurances.

I'm not sure that reasurances are the right track. That's why I started the "Lost sheep or fatal disease?" thread. It doesn't seem to matter how many reassurances you give a Biblical literalist. They will still stick to literalism no matter what. So maybe we should move this discussion over there. I'll post the rest of my response there.

Crusadar · Aug 19, 2003

Jet Black said:
scripture is a theological message... a guide to get to heaven if you like. you can tell that God uses this method in the parables told by Jesus. the literal truth of what he says is not important - the message is. (oops, sorry, I posted in the CO forum )

If that is what you wish to believe about the word of God than that is your choice but in your attempt simply dismiss the creation account to that of a parable you forget that Jesus told parables only after when? Only when it was made clear to us that that they were parables:

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Matthew 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Mark 12:12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.
Mark 13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
Luke 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
Luke 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
Luke 8:4 And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:
Luke 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Luke 12:16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
Luke 12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
Luke 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
Luke 14:7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them,
Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Luke 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
Luke 20:9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
Luke 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
John 10:6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

Before a parable was told the reader is made aware that it was a parable so it would be very erroneous to conclude that the creation account was in fact only a parable when Jesus used parables all the time. This comes not from faith I suspect but from fallible human reasoning.

Jesus was God you know and the fact that He was God also meant that He was omniscient and knew the capabilities of our finite minds. If Jesus were to tell us of heavenly things how can we as finite beings understand infinite heavenly concepts without an earthly axiom to work with?

Crusadar · Aug 19, 2003

lucaspa said:
Yes. Evidently this guy knows nothing about the history of Christianity.

That may be however it seems neither do many self proclaimed Christians

but that is what is expected as there are different levels of being a Christian you know. It is one thing to talk the Christian talk but it is another to walk it.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 19, 2003

Crusadar said:
If that is what you wish to believe about the word of God than that is your choice but in your attempt simply dismiss the creation account to that of a parable you forget that Jesus told parables only after when? Only when it was made clear to us that that they were parables:

(output of an online Bible search for "parable" snipped)

Before a parable was told the reader is made aware that it was a parable so it would be very erroneous to conclude that the creation account was in fact only a parable when Jesus used parables all the time. This comes not from faith I suspect but from fallible human reasoning.

So. Because these passages are explicitly parables it follows that all parables must be explicitly delared as such? I cannot present you with an example of an unannounced parable because by your definition it can't be a parable if it's unannounced. It's a True Scotsman fallacy:

All True Scotsman eat salted porridge
My Uncle Hamish doesn't eat salted porridge
Your Uncle Hamish isn't a True Scotsman

i.e.

All parables are announced as parables
The book of Job is not announced as a parable
The book of Job is not a parable.

Jesus was God you know

Correct

and the fact that He was God also meant that He was omniscient

Wrong. Mark 13 v.32

and knew the capabilities of our finite minds.

Because He had one as well. If He didn't, He wasn't truly human. He emptied Himself of the attributes of divinity to become Man (Philippians 2). But Christology is by the by.

If Jesus were to tell us of heavenly things how can we as finite beings understand infinite heavenly concepts without an earthly axiom to work with?

Indeed. Which is why He didn't tart around messing with the primitive scientific understanding of people but worked within that understanding.

Crusadar · Aug 19, 2003

Karl - Liberal Backslider] 1) Midway through your paragraph you shift from "literal and not" to "true and false". Is this your problem - you don't understand how something can be true without being literal?

Let faith guide your thinking chap, not mere human intuition. You obviously missed the point as what I was saying is why do we believe in what scripture says in certain things when we do not in others? Is it logical to believe in an inconsistent God? Or for that matter a God who deceives by saying He did one thing and then shows us another?

2) Does it matter? The lessons and applications for today are the same whether it's literal or not.

Yes it does matter. If one were Satan and wanted to destroy the truth about God where would one begin? It would be pointless to attack the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ, as that would be too obvious. One would start with the very foundation of all scripture in discrediting God as sole creator as that is what makes Him God and gives Him sole proprietary rights to us. What one has done then is proven (or think they have anyway) that God is not required or needed therefore He has no right to us as natural processes could have done what God is said to have done. And so there was no literal Adam and Eve and there was no original sin therefore there is no need for Christ to die for anyone. That would be barbaric acording to todays standards and besides how can one man die for the whole world anyway or for that matter why would God allow His one and only son to die for a race descended of apes anyway?

Evolution and Christianity

Criado de Cristo

Jedi Master

Jet Black

Guest

Criado de Cristo

Criado de Cristo

Jet Black

Guest

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Legend

Contributor

Legend

Contributor

Legend

Contributor

Legend

Criado de Cristo

Criado de Cristo

Senior Veteran

Criado de Cristo

Similar threads