Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

DNA is literally knitted together into a double helix except for viruses are just a helix.

Psalm 139 13
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

No? You're seeing something that isn't there. Do you see DNA mentioned somewhere in that verse? Knitting is something done with yarn not DNA.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think the audience in those days would of grasped a hydrogen bonded double helix DNA or the development of organs etc., in a fetus.

That's correct. And nor would the author have grasped those concepts either. And it wouldn't have made sense for God to provide revelation to an audience that wouldn't have understood any of it anyway. The point of revelation is to reveal things. Not to provide hidden riddles to the isrealites that they would never understand.

We could imagine the isrealites walking around with the Psalms, but not actually understanding what the passages are saying.

 

[The Barbarian]

First of all, in Genesis 1, God did not even create the Sun and Moon until the fourth day of creation. This means that the first three days were not 'days' as in the 24 hour days we know of now.

Right.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope, an explanation addresses the "why" not simply the "how."

I think you're confusing material, formal, and efficient causes with final causes. The final cause is God. But if you restrict the answer to "why?" to God, it becomes a rather useless word, doesn't it?

 

[Fervent]

I think you're confusing material, formal, and efficient causes with final causes. The final cause is God. But if you restrict the answer to "why?" to God, it becomes a rather useless word, doesn't it?

Causation is a philosophical question, and I don't restrict the answer of "why?" to God, but it all traces back to and flows from God. In fact, many would deny that there is such a thing as anything but efficient causes, and that belief flows from a rejection of belief in God.

My main contention is simply that we are constantly making assumptions without recognizing that we are, in fact, making assumptions. There's an ideal of science as being limited in its assumptions, but there are a number of assumptions that are baked in and often invisible because they are ubiquitous in the broader culture or even simply necessary for basic exploration of the world.

The idealization of science as being something that can be compartmentalized and focused on specific disciplines is only partially realizable. So long as human beings are engaged in the mix, there will be hidden biases and philosophical constructs being snuck in both intentionally and simply based on predominant assumptions in the culture. Science starting with the world/creation/the universe as primary leads to a situation in which LaPlace takes precedence because such an orientation is built on assumptions that are easily made invisible, especially as the naturalistic worldview becomes more predominant leaving the assumptions unchallenged.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

When doing it properly, yes science only describes relationships between objects. It doesn't answer questions of "why" but "how," which while can be an explanation in some sense is more of a middle ground between a decription and an explanation.

In a way, he has entered the world of ontology since ontology is anything related to being. How he understands what "air" or "pipes" are will in many ways be informed indirectly by how theological questions are answered. And it's not that he will consciously be aware of these things, but that failing to become aware of such things is simply to adopt positions uncritically.

Cool

When people attempt to explain things outside of what the Bible simply says, they get so complicated that it is difficult to know what they are talking about. Reminds me when I was working as a registrar in the Family Court when there was a case involving a separated couple's bank accounts. They had a valuer for the plaintive and one for the respondent. They both spoke a lot of gobbedygook, and during the lunch break in the judge's common room, the judge was heard to say, "This would be an interesting case if I knew what was going on!"

 

[BeyondET]

No? You're seeing something that isn't there. Do you see DNA mentioned somewhere in that verse? Knitting is something done with yarn not DNA.

So your saying God knits people in the womb with yarn?

 

[BeyondET]

That's correct. And nor would the author have grasped those concepts either. And it wouldn't have made sense for God to provide revelation to an audience that wouldn't have understood any of it anyway. The point of revelation is to reveal things. Not to provide hidden riddles to the isrealites that they would never understand.

We could imagine the isrealites walking around with the Psalms, but not actually understanding what the passages are saying.

There's no hidden riddle about knitting in the womb, as you've said with yarn.

 

[Job 33:6]

There's no hidden riddle about knitting in the womb, as you've said with yarn.

The ancient isrealites wouldn't have known about DNA. So if it were truly about DNA, then that's a revelation that the original audience ever actually knew about. Thus rendering revelation meaningless.

 

[Job 33:6]

So your saying God knits people in the womb with yarn?

It just means to weave something. It's not specific to any particular object. Job 10:11 uses the same word and it's talking more about the weaving of bones and sinews (tendons).

So really, Psalms more properly understood would be to say that it's not about DNA, but rather is more likely about the weaving together of bones and tendons, as is specific elsewhere in the old testament.

‭‭Job 10:11 NET‬‬
[11] You clothed me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews.

But the action isn't the direct object. It's just a concept of wrapping things together. But it's never used in the Bible to refer to DNA. DNA is never mentioned at all in the Bible.

Understandably so, the ancient isrealites hadn't discovered DNA yet, so they wouldn't have been speaking or hearing, authoring, or being and audience of such information.

 

[BeyondET]

The ancient isrealites wouldn't have known about DNA. So if it were truly about DNA, then that's a revelation that the original audience ever actually knew about. Thus rendering revelation meaningless.

We know it wasn't with yarn, so what's the knitting in the womb?

 

[BeyondET]

It just means to weave something. It's not specific to any particular object. Job 10:11 uses the same word and it's talking more about the weaving of bones and sinews (tendons).

So really, Psalms more properly understood would be to say that it's not about DNA, but rather is more likely about the weaving together of bones and tendons, as is specific elsewhere in the old testament.

‭‭Job 10:11 NET‬‬
[11] You clothed me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews.

But the action isn't the direct object. It's just a concept of wrapping things together. But it's never used in the Bible to refer to DNA. DNA is never mentioned at all in the Bible.

Understandably so, the ancient isrealites hadn't discovered DNA yet, so they wouldn't have been speaking or hearing, authoring, or being and audience of such information.

O I see it's only the bones and tendons, God had nothing to do with DNA in the bones which your DNA can be transplanted bone marrow to another person. And God created it that way along with DNA and all the organs in the humanbody. You are delusional if you think it's only bones tendons skin and flesh. He knows every hair on your hand.

Yea everyone pretty much knows the ancient Israelites hadn't discovered God's creation of DNA.

It's about knitting everything in the humanbody regardless of what they knew. People today know what goes on in the womb. That verse is referring to the developmental process in the womb. One of the first to start knitting is hydrogen bonding of helixes that eventually form the bones tendons skin flesh.etc.

 

[Job 33:6]

O I see it's only the bones and tendons, God had nothing to do with DNA in the bones which your DNA can be transplanted bone marrow to another person. And God created it that way along with DNA and all the organs in the humanbody. You are delusional if you think it's only bones tendons skin and flesh. He knows every hair on your hand.

Yea everyone pretty much knows the ancient Israelites hadn't discovered God's creation of DNA.

It's about knitting everything in the humanbody regardless of what they knew. People today know what goes on in the womb. That verse is referring to the developmental process in the womb. One of the first to start knitting is hydrogen bonding of helixes that eventually form the bones tendons skin flesh.etc.

The question is about what the text says. It doesn't mention DNA in the book of Job, it talks about weaving bones and tendons.

You can't force the text to say things that it doesn't say. The only thing delusional is you acting like the text is about DNA.

It would be like arguing that because tendons are made of subatomic particles, that this must be what Job was talking about lol. Oh and when King Solomon is talking about his temple? He's actually talking about the molecular structure and strong and weak electromagnetic forces of the metals used to build the temple too.

Um sorry, that's not what the Bible is talking about. It doesn't mention DNA and that's not what the psalmist is talking about. And I'm sorry if this is a hard reality for you.

The psalmist lived many centuries ago before DNA was ever discovered. He didn't know about DNA. And his audience didn't know about DNA either. They lived thousands of years ago. They didn't have microscopes back then. And that's why DNA is never mentioned in the Bible.

 

[BeyondET]

The question is about what the text says. It doesn't mention DNA in the book of Job, it talks about weaving bones and tendons.

You can't force the text to say things that it doesn't say. The only thing delusional is you acting like the text is about DNA.

It would be like arguing that because tendons are made of subatomic particles, that this must be what Job was talking about lol. Oh and when King Solomon is talking about his temple? He's actually talking about the molecular structure and strong and weak electromagnetic forces of the metals used to build the temple too.

Um sorry, that's not what the Bible is talking about. It doesn't mention DNA and that's not what the psalmist is talking about. And I'm sorry if this is a hard reality for you.

The psalmist lived many centuries ago before DNA was ever discovered. He didn't know about DNA. And his audience didn't know about DNA either. They lived thousands of years ago. They didn't have microscopes back then. And that's why DNA is never mentioned in the Bible.

It doesn't talk about everything like what you mentioned bones and tendons. A tendon connects a muscle to a bone yet there is no mentioning of weaving muscles.

I'm not saying the word DNA is directly mentioned in scripture just like Mars is not mentioned directly in scripture but there is references to other planets in the bible.

It seems you want to discredit DNA as having nothing to do with creation.

We can move on from what the psalmist knew, and know what happens in the womb today. I am sorry as well its a hard realization for you to grasped.

 

[davetaff]

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

Sure, but you don't have to. You can assume evolution without believing in it. Let's talk about the utility of the theory of Evolution.

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.

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

The Cheating Cell: How Evolution Helps Us Understand and Treat Cancer

If the theory works in daily practical life, there is no need to reject it. There is no need to believe in it either in the sense of spiritual faith.

See also

• Adam, Eve, and evolution
• How old is the earth?.

No you can't its a question of did God create everything or did everything create its self from dead matter I believe that God created everything the ,last thing to be created is man ( mankind ) in his image this will be when Jesus Christ stands before the Father with the great multitude that is his body the body of believers.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[Job 33:6]

It doesn't talk about everything like what you mentioned bones and tendons. A tendon connects a muscle to a bone yet there is no mentioning of weaving muscles.

I'm not saying the word DNA is directly mentioned in scripture just like Mars is not mentioned directly in scripture but there is references to other planets in the bible.

It seems you want to discredit DNA as having nothing to do with creation.

We can move on from what the psalmist knew, and know what happens in the womb today. I am sorry as well its a hard realization for you to grasped.

People have known about planets for thousands of years, so there isn't anything abnormal about them being referred to in the Bible. Anyone with eyeballs can look up and see them. DNA on the other hand, is never even referenced, not even indirectly.

 

[tonychanyt]

did everything create its self from dead matter

Who believes that?

 

[totallylovedbygod]

answer is NO

 

[sfs]

answer is NO

So your Bible has a footnote in Romans 10:9? 'if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved(*).'

(*) Unless you believe in evolution, in which case this offer is void.

 

[The Barbarian]

Causation is a philosophical question, and I don't restrict the answer of "why?" to God, but it all traces back to and flows from God.

That's what a "final cause" is.

In fact, many would deny that there is such a thing as anything but efficient causes, and that belief flows from a rejection of belief in God.

Maybe we should confine this discussion to things you and I say.

My main contention is simply that we are constantly making assumptions without recognizing that we are, in fact, making assumptions.

For example, in reading scripture and inserting ideas that aren't therein.

The idealization of science as being something that can be compartmentalized and focused on specific disciplines is only partially realizable.

It's just a method. Scientists would tell you that. I think one of the reasons that some religious people resent science, is they see it as kind of a magical thing that demeans faith. Not so. One might as well resent plumbing for not relying on faith. Just a method. It works better than anything else humans can do to learn about the physical universe. But that's it. It's not magic.

Science starting with the world/creation/the universe as primary leads to a situation in which LaPlace takes precedence because such an orientation is built on assumptions that are easily made invisible, especially as the naturalistic worldview becomes more predominant leaving the assumptions unchallenged.

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