Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[BeyondET]

The Word can be alive without needing to suit it to my modern day ideas. I can still understand the psalmist, describing the Lords love for us, knitting is together in the womb, there with us from the very beginning before we are even born. Etc.

I can understand this without the text needing to say anything about DNA or modern scientific ideas.

The Word is Holy. It need not be bound in any way to my modern scientific concepts. So if the psalmist didn't know about DNA and didn't mention DNA, it doesn't change anything.

Next thing you know, science makes a mistake and DNA isn't actually knitted together, and then I have to then decide whether or not I was wrong or the psalmist was wrong. It's much easier to just let scripture stand on its own, than to have science drag scripture along wherever science may go.

Science can help inform us of how to interpret scripture. But scripture should not be bound to it in a dependent way. As though scripture itself might change over time to suit science. Oh science made a new discovery, I guess scripture has to be talking about that too now. Oh science updated? I guess scripture has to follow along because how could scripture ever say something different? Oh scientists made a mistake? Well I guess scripture never actually meant to describe that after all. Etc.

Do you see how we wouldn't want to allow science to drag scripture back and forth? The Bible should be independent and static. It shouldn't be on a rollercoaster, submitting to the ebbs and flows of scientific advanced. And if for some reason tomorrow, DNA were found out to not exist by scientists, we wouldn't want to then have to double back and "correct the psalmist".

And easier example would be something like the Big Bang theory. Some people read Genesis 1:1 and think it's talking about the big bang. But what would happen if the big bang were in some sense disproven? Would we then say "well I guess Moses was wrong! Guess I'll become an atheist now!".

You see, we can't have scripture being carried along by the advances of science. Unless you want scripture itself to fail.

And you said all that using computer science interesting

 

[Job 33:6]

And you said all that using computer science interesting

Do you think scientists can make mistakes?

If so, modern science shouldn't be a determining factor for Biblical truth.

Like I said, what happens when someone reads Genesis 1:1 and says it's about the big bang, but then at some point in the future, the big bang is overturned or re-written?

Do we then circle back to the Bible and say "well, since Moses was talking about the big bang, I guess he was wrong" ?

The Catholic church tried to make the Bible fit with modern science of geocentrism of its day. And what happened when science advanced? Did people turn and say "well, I guess Joshua was wrong all along, the sun doesn't orbit earth after all" ?

 

[The Barbarian]

The Word is Holy. It need not be bound in any way to my modern scientific concepts. So if the psalmist didn't know about DNA and didn't mention DNA, it doesn't change anything.

Today's winner.

 

[Job 33:6]

Today's winner.

Thanks. Yea seems simple to me. And I'm a scientist. I hold science in very high regard. But this scientific concordism is just making a huge mess of things. Nobody knows what the bible is talking about anymore and everyone subsequently ends up distracting science due to confusion over the Bible. It's just a mess.

 

[Diamond72]

evolution opposes the Biblical description of the origins of the world and mankind.

Too bad you can not get that to stand up in a court of law. People have opinions with no evidence to back them up.

 

[Diamond72]

So if the psalmist didn't know about DNA and didn't mention DNA, it doesn't change anything.

David raised sheep and they knew about animal husbandry back then. That is what civilization is all about is selective breeding. The difference between a wild plant and cultivated are the way the seeds are planted.

 

[Job 33:6]

David raised sheep and they knew about animal husbandry back then. That is what civilization is all about is selective breeding. The difference between a wild plant and cultivated are the way the seeds are planted.

Knowing about animal husbandry isn't the same as knowing about DNA. If that's what you mean.

 

[Qubit]

And so when it comes to Bible interpretation, there's really no reason to even talk about subatomic particles or DNA, because the author wouldn't have known of such a thing, nor would the audience, and that's just not what they're talking about, they aren't talking about things that they aren't aware of.

So, God did not author the Bible?

Or are you saying God did author it, but was clueless about DNA, Particles etc.?

 

[Qubit]

Genetic Engineering has entered the Chat.

So, where did those Giant grapes come from? Was that evolution, or was there genetic tinkering going on?

 

[The Barbarian]

So, God did not author the Bible?

If I was to give a talk to first-graders about the importance of hand-cleaning, I won't be talking about the nature of prokaryotic cell adhesion and the way that surfactants make water "wetter." Why would you think God wouldn't be as aware of His people's limitations?

 

[The Barbarian]

So, where did those Giant grapes come from? Was that evolution, or was there genetic tinkering going on?

When a population changes genetically that is, by definition, evolution. Even if it's by "genetic tinkering." Selective breeding and natural selection are "genetic tinkering."

 

[The Barbarian]

Too bad you can not get that to stand up in a court of law. People have opinions with no evidence to back them up.

This is why there are maybe hundreds of thousands of religions, but only one sort of science. When you abandon evidence, then pretty much anything goes. Faith is a valid way to know God, but God either reveals Himself in different ways to different people, or the vast majority of the world missed the memo on God.

 

[Qubit]

If I was to give a talk to first-graders about the importance of hand-cleaning, I won't be talking about the nature of prokaryotic cell adhesion and the way that surfactants make water "wetter." Why would you think God wouldn't be as aware of His people's limitations?

That did not answer the question. As far as limitations, I have no problem whatsoever understanding how the Tabernacle is a scale model of a Eukaryotic Cell.

 

[Qubit]

When a population changes genetically that is, by definition, evolution. Even if it's by "genetic tinkering." Selective breeding and natural selection are "genetic tinkering."

So, the Theory of Evolution includes genetic engineering by past civilizations and/or interdimensional beings?

Or is it just Eugenics?

Or is Eugenics even considered?

 

[Qubit]

Do we then circle back to the Bible and say "well, since Moses was talking about the big bang, I guess he was wrong" ?

No, we just update our interpretations of the Bible.

BTW, if the Big Bang did happen, it most likely happened after the Fall. There is evidence to suggest that two events were simultaneous.

 

[Fervent]

Sorry, but this made me laugh out loud. "Ordinary usage of the word" is what the word means. If you're working in some restricted domain, then a word's semantic range may be more limited, but we're in a public discussion forum here. If you think that everyone else means the wrong thing by the word 'why', that means you don't know how language works.

It's not that everyone means the wrong thing by the word "why," but that common usage isn't the best starting point for a discussion such as this. While common usage can allow "why" to have a broader sense and does include "how" and "what," there is a clear aspect of "why" that is unique to the word itself that is a better fit with the notion of an explanation than its broader semantic range.

Two comments. First, you have been claiming that one's answers to theological questions affect his or her understanding of things like water and air, or DNA and electrons; that is, that the actual understanding of real people depends on their answers to theological questions. Now, however, you're suggesting instead that their understanding should depend on their theological beliefs. That's a very different claim. You've created a model for how you think people think, and when confronted with evidence that they don't think that way, your response is to blame the people for their failure to conform to your model.

Whether they are aware of it or not, answers to theological questions have a great deal of influence over how people think. But the effects are subtle, because they are often adopted theological beliefs that are largely unchallenged in broader cultures and only become obvious if the individual is put into a culture that predominantly holds different theological beliefs. My suggestion was not a suggestion that your understanding should follow, but that if you don't recognize the dependence perhaps you haven't fully considered the implications of believing in an omnipresent, omnisicient God on "ordinary" matter and such.

Second, it's not clear what you mean by 'the constitution of reality'. My answers to theological questions affect my understanding of the universe and of human life, but they do not affect in any meaningful way my understanding of DNA or electrons -- or water and air, for that matter. I would venture that you would do well to spend more time asking how scientists think and less time telling them how they do. (And for the record, I've thought about many things, including these issues, quite hard for a very long time.)

Don't they? Do you believe that DNA and electrons exist independently, or that they are created and continually sustained by God alone?

 

[Fervent]

That's God.

There are other final causes than God, at least in the Aristotlean sense of final cause. A hairbrushes final cause is brushing hair, a bananas final cause is human consumption. So while the ultimate final cause would be God, final cause is not just God.

In principle, plumbing is to deal with pipes and flow through them.

Is there some kind of hive mind that loves to compare scientists to plumbers?

Nevertheless, plumbing and science are possible and commonly done. A plumber might be a theist, but that doesn't affect the way he does plumbing. It might affect how he deals with customers, but not how he deals with pipes.

To an extent, and so long as we restrict science to purely mechanical questions the analogy may be apt. But it's rare for discussions of science to be so focused.

For example, one atheistic scientist angrily denounced the big bang theory (he coined the term as a pejorative) because it suggested a beginning of the universe. But it didn't have much affect for anyone else.

Ok?

"If it can't be perfect, then it isn't valid" is a rather obviously false assumption.

Hardly what I said, especially since I don't claim it isn't valid.

Seems unlikely, since the great founders of scientific disciplines like Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc were believers in God.

Copernicus and Newton are far removed from modern sciences, and Einstein's belief wasn't in a personal God but more like Spinoza's god which is entirely agreeable to materialist philosophy.

And one no physicist would say. It's wrong on so many levels.

I'm not sure whether physicists would say it, but I've heard it from physics and engineering teachers at the college level. Some of them even identify as theists.

There is a philosophy of science. And biologists at least, were once expected to have some grounding in philosophy. But even if a plumber is a theist, he doesn't have to exorcise the demons of blockage to do his work.

There is, but it's more concerned with nailing down what qualifies as science rather than dealing with metaphysical questions that arise within science. You seem to like the plumber analogy, as if scientists are just glorified tradesmen but there is so much more to science than research methods.

Most scientists would be amused by that claim, since most of us are theists or (less commonly) deists of some sort.

Again you assert this, but I'm curious where you get it from. Most scientists in what field, in what country, etc? Is this just your personal experience?

Doesn't matter. Notice I said "theists or deists"; many great scientists were deists. Still believers, such as Einstein.

No, it actually does matter. Deists theological assumptions are materially different from believers in an interactive personal God, assumptions that make them closer to atheists than they are to traditional theists.

We would be going beyond what scientists do. What a foolish idea. You might as well make plumbing a cornerstone of your knowledge base.

I agree, but it's what happens when science education is single-mindedly pushed and philosophical disciplines are pushed out as irrelevant relics of the past that lead to unemployability. Science is a tool, a very powerful tool, but its ability to generate research and technological development has created a situation where individuals who are well trained in science(think Hawking, or Sagan, or Degrasse Tyson) become authorities outside of their specialized domain and feed into a perception that science is the gold standard(if not the sole candidate) for generating and refining human knowledge.

He could have made Himself overtly obvious to all, if he chose to do that. I suppose that He wants each of us to have the freedom to choose Him or not. But He also says this:

Sure, though when I speak of manifesting Himself I mean in a way such as He did to Paul. Which He certainly could, but we can only work with how things are.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Yep, but that's more a discussion to be had with atheists.

It's a limitation of science. It can only work with the physical universe. The supernatural is beyond it's reach.

There's a pretty major assumption in this statement, and that's that what science does(looking for semi-reliable predictable phenomena) is the full constitution of "physical." Even saying the "physical universe" brings us into a realm that is beyond science, since "physical" is understood to be a property of objects, but science truly only deals with apparent phenomenon. Unless we use "physical" in an unnatural way that is nothing more than a reference to our sense responses(and the instruments for phenomena that are beyond our sense perceptions) we've moved beyond what science can say and into ontology. So what, exactly, do you mean when you say "physical universe"?

Perhaps you should consider the difference between ontological materialism and methodological materialism. The plumber doesn't test for demons of blockage, even if he knows there are demons. That's how it works.

I'm fine with maintaining a distinction between the metaphysics and the methodology, but the only way to truly maintain such a distinction is to make it explicit in a way that would be cumbersome to actually apply(and probably not provide a whole lot of practical benefit). My concern isn't for how the biologist does his job, but with public discourse and pedagogical approaches. My beef isn't with science, but more properly with an idolization of science that has made it easy for the Dawkins', Dennett's, and Hitchens' of the world to gain an audience and weaponize science beyond simply addressing and criticizing fundamentalist pseudo-science.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, we just update our interpretations of the Bible.

BTW, if the Big Bang did happen, it most likely happened after the Fall. There is evidence to suggest that two events were simultaneous.

That's exactly the problem. And so the question becomes, century after century after century, of updated and changed scientific information, how many christians have been wrong over the centuries? The answer: all of them, because the big bang wasn't discovered until the 1900s.

Or, how many early church fathers had no idea what the Bible was talking about? Answer: all of them. St Augustine didn't know anything about the big bang.

How many 2nd temple period Jews, or how about the apostles of Jesus, how many of them understood the Bible? Answer: none of them. The apostles didn't know anything about the big bang. There are no ancient writings about background radiation or redshift or anything like that.

How about ancient isrealites? Answer: none of them. Ancient isrealites didn't even know about heliocentrism, let alone the big bang.


And so, we end up in this position where, coincidentally we, today, know what the Bible is about, within our century. And yet oddly enough, nobody in history knew beforehand.

Anyone think that sounds a little narcissistic?

That over 3,000 years, it wasn't until this generation, or that of our immediate parents, that the true meaning of Genesis 1:1 was finally unlocked? How privileged we are, by coincidence, that we now know what the Bible means, while all the early church fathers that founded Christian theology, did not.

Take that st. Augustine! I understand the Bible better than you!

 

[Job 33:6]

No, we just update our interpretations of the Bible.

BTW, if the Big Bang did happen, it most likely happened after the Fall. There is evidence to suggest that two events were simultaneous.

Also, Moses lived 3,000 years ago. He didn't know about the big bang. If he did, he could have simply said "In the Beginning, there was a big bang".

Another issue is that, let's say in 100 years, someone finds something wrong with the big bang.

Then, if I spent my whole life saying "Genesis is about the big bang", now all of a sudden I'm wrong. And how many people have I therefore mislead about the Bible?

The approach of reading modern science into the Bible, just doesn't make any sense. As if the "true meaning" of the text is hidden in the pages, and can only be accessed by scientifically enlightened people.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are other final causes than God, at least in the Aristotlean sense of final cause.

Not for a Christian.

Is there some kind of hive mind that loves to compare scientists to plumbers?

To non-scientists, science seems to often be mysterious and difficult. Plumbing not so much. Laymen seem to get methodological naturalism much easier when it's plumbing. Far as I know, I first used that example to explain to non-scientists.

Nevertheless, plumbing and science are possible and commonly done. A plumber might be a theist, but that doesn't affect the way he does plumbing. It might affect how he deals with customers, but not how he deals with pipes.

To an extent, and so long as we restrict science to purely mechanical questions the analogy may be apt. But it's rare for discussions of science to be so focused.

Guess how I know you don't read a lot of biological literature.

Copernicus and Newton are far removed from modern sciences, and Einstein's belief wasn't in a personal God but more like Spinoza's god which is entirely agreeable to materialist philosophy.

Those don't seem like valid excuses, since all of those men remain important in modern science. You could add Francis Collins, Theo Dobzhansky, and many others. And no deist could be a materialist, since she would believe in a transcendant Creator.

I agree, but it's what happens when science education is single-mindedly pushed and philosophical disciplines are pushed out as irrelevant relics of the past that lead to unemployability.

Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. Director of the Human Genome Project. And head of the NIH. You merely made a bad assumption here.

Deists theological assumptions are materially different from believers in an interactive personal God

Believers in God (whatever they think of God) seem to be a group set apart from those who don't believe in God. I don't think you've thought about this very deeply.

I agree, but it's what happens when science education is single-mindedly pushed and philosophical disciplines are pushed out as irrelevant relics of the past that lead to unemployability.

Francis Collins. And many, many others. The man who taught me about evolution was a member of the vestry of his church. C'mon.

It's a limitation of science. It can only work with the physical universe. The supernatural is beyond it's reach.

There's a pretty major assumption in this statement

It's just the way science works. We can only work with physical phenomena. Things measurable and repeatable. There have been attempts by people to measure the soul by weighing beds just before and after a patient expires. Complete failure.

Unless we use "physical" in an unnatural way that is nothing more than a reference to our sense responses(and the instruments for phenomena that are beyond our sense perceptions) we've moved beyond what science can say and into ontology.

If science were to say "that's all there is; there is nothing beyond the reach of our ability to sense it." But of course, that's the difference between ontological materialism, and the methodological materialism of science. Even Richard Dawkins ultimately admits that his is only a methodological materialism; he realizes there may be a God beyond his perceptions.

I'm fine with maintaining a distinction between the metaphysics and the methodology, but the only way to truly maintain such a distinction is to make it explicit in a way that would be cumbersome to actually apply(and probably not provide a whole lot of practical benefit).

It always seemed to work fine when I did it. Never saw anyone else have a problem with it. Maybe actually doing science makes it easier to understand.

My beef isn't with science, but more properly with an idolization of science that has made it easy for the Dawkins', Dennett's, and Hitchens' of the world to gain an audience and weaponize science beyond simply addressing and criticizing fundamentalist pseudo-science.

We called them fundy atheists. And they exist. But they are just as wrong as their religious counterparts. Notice, Dawkins isn't one of them. In fact, he admits that there could be a God out there. He thinks that such a God would be a pretty unpleasant fellow, but still...