Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[BeyondET]

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.

Neither is green beans mentioned does that make DNA and green beans not of God? There's millions of things not directly mentioned in the bible. Certainly doesn’t mean there aren't any verses to reference.

Planets aren't directly referred to in the Bible but there is verses for reference.

 

[sfs]

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.

Where you have once again assigned a meaning to a word, in this case 'why', that is very different from how that word is used by native speakers of English. Or rather, you have arbitrarily restricted it to a small part of its semantic range. I'm not sure why you do this but you're certainly not making communication easier.

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.

That is your assertion. I think that assertion is almost wholly in error. I will venture to say that if a plumber changes her answers to theological questions, her understanding of 'air' and 'pipes' will almost never be materially affected. Not how she interacts with air and pipes and not how she thinks about them. If I were to become an atheist tomorrow, my understanding of DNA and of electrons would not change in any meaningful way.

Do you have any evidence that the actual views of real scientists about the subjects of their theories vary with their theological beliefs?

 

[Job 33:6]

Neither is green beans mentioned does that make DNA and green beans not of God? There's millions of things not directly mentioned in the bible. Certainly doesn’t mean there aren't any verses to reference.

Planets aren't directly referred to in the Bible but there is verses for reference.

I never said that you couldn't reference a verse when talking about something. But that's not to say that verse is actually talking about what you're referencing. I could talk about knitting a blanket and could reference the psalmist knitting a person in their mother's womb. But just because I can talk about knitting a blanket doesn't mean that this is the subject of the verse.

 

[Job 33:6]

Neither is green beans mentioned does that make DNA and green beans not of God? There's millions of things not directly mentioned in the bible. Certainly doesn’t mean there aren't any verses to reference.

Planets aren't directly referred to in the Bible but there is verses for reference.

Ancient people were certainly able to look up at the sky to see planets. A 2 year old can do that too, without any advanced technology. So there is nothing abnormal about mention of planets in the Bible. It is however, incorrect to argue that the Bible talks about DNA. The historical ancient isrealites authors and audience of the Bible did not know about DNA, they didn't have microscopes back then. And so you will never find a verse about DNA in the Bible, because they did not write about things that they weren't aware of.

 

[BeyondET]

I never said that you couldn't reference a verse when talking about something. But that's not to say that verse is actually talking about what you're referencing. I could talk about knitting a blanket and could reference the psalmist knitting a person in their mother's womb. But just because I can talk about knitting a blanket doesn't mean that this is the subject of the verse.

Knitting can be referred to the hydrogen bonding of DNA that happens in the womb. The subject of the verse covers everything in womb. People aren't born with just bones and tendons.

 

[BeyondET]

Ancient people were certainly able to look up at the sky to see planets. A 2 year old can do that too, without any advanced technology. So there is nothing abnormal about mention of planets in the Bible. It is however, incorrect to argue that the Bible talks about DNA. The historical ancient isrealites authors and audience of the Bible did not know about DNA, they didn't have microscopes back then. And so you will never find a verse about DNA in the Bible, because they did not write about things that they weren't aware of.

A 102 year old person can see the wondering stars. But no one can see the rings of Saturn without a telescope. Sure they knew the wondering stars were not fix stars. And they hypothesized planets, no one can see with the naked eye the surface of a planet or sphere in the sky. Planets look like stars period.

 

[sfs]

Knitting can be referred to the hydrogen bonding of DNA that happens in the womb.

Knitting can also be taken to refer to an immense number of other things that happen in the womb: atomic bonds to form molecules, peptides forming multimeric proteins, cell-cell connections, the construction of extracellular matrix. Why do you think it refers to DNA and not all of the other things that the author didn't know about? If a term can refer to almost everything, it doesn't refer to anything.

 

[BeyondET]

Knitting can also be taken to refer to an immense number of other things that happen in the womb: atomic bonds to form molecules, peptides forming multimeric proteins, cell-cell connections, the construction of extracellular matrix. Why do you think it refers to DNA and not all of the other things that the author didn't know about? If a term can refer to almost everything, it doesn't refer to anything.

You cut off part of my post where I said it covers everything in the womb.

Then you ask me a question why it isn't everything. Are playing a game here or what?

 

[Job 33:6]

A 102 year old person can see the wondering stars. But no one can see the rings of Saturn without a telescope. Sure they knew the wondering stars were not fix stars. And they hypothesized planets, no one can see with the naked eye the surface of a planet or sphere in the sky. Planets look like stars period.

Well, the Bible never mentions the rings of Saturn. So why are you talking about them? The Bible never mentions the surface of Saturn either.

 

[Job 33:6]

You cut off part of my post where I said it covers everything in the womb.

Then you ask me a question why it isn't everything. Are playing a game here or what?

The authors didnt know about DNA. I'm not saying that it isn't a real thing. It's just that the Biblical authors aren't communicating things they aren't aware of. Just like you wouldn't talk about subatomic particles if you didn't know of such things.

When you were 5 years old, you might talk about a car. And a car is partially made of subatomic particles. But if you ever said to your parents that you would like to ride in the car, your parents wouldn't then turn and assume that you were talking about subatomic particles, because they know that you are not actually aware of such a thing. And likewise, if your parents asked you about subatomic particles, you would have no idea what they were talking about, you were just talking about the car.

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.

And think about it. Guys like Richard Dawkins who are aware about DNA, therefore would understand the Bible to a fuller extent than the authors of the Bible themselves (who didn't know about DNA).

 

[BeyondET]

The authors didnt know about DNA. I'm not saying that it isn't a real thing. It's just that the Biblical authors aren't communicating things they aren't aware of. Just like you wouldn't talk about subatomic particles if you didn't know of such things.

When you were 5 years old, you might talk about a car. And a car is partially made of subatomic particles. But if you ever said to your parents that you would like to ride in the car, your parents wouldn't then turn and assume that you were talking about subatomic particles, because they know that you are not actually aware of such a thing. And likewise, if your parents asked you about subatomic particles, you would have no idea what they were talking about, you were just talking about the car.

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.

The author knew alot more than just bones and tendons. If the Bible was to account for everything that happens in the womb. The author would need alot more chapters just on that and probably a couple of Bibles.

 

[BeyondET]

Well, the Bible never mentions the rings of Saturn. So why are you talking about them? The Bible never mentions the surface of Saturn either.

Because you seem to think a 2 year old can see planets. No one can see a planets surface just a wondering star.
Quite frankly a 2 year old wouldn't know what they are looking at.

 

[DavidTheGnome]

Unlike Genesis, the evolution theory does not explain why humanity is sinful.

 

[BeyondET]

Unlike Genesis, the evolution theory does not explain why humanity is sinful.

It's not really meant too, that all happened after creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because you seem to think a 2 year old can see planets. No one can see a planets surface just a wondering star.
Quite frankly a 2 year old wouldn't know what they are looking at.

Everyone can look up at the sky and see planets. I never said they could make out things like the texture of their surface, or their rings. And the Bible doesn't have any passages about the rings of Saturn or it's texture anyway.

 

[Job 33:6]

The author knew alot more than just bones and tendons. If the Bible was to account for everything that happens in the womb. The author would need alot more chapters just on that and probably a couple of Bibles.

The Bible gives no evidence that the authors were aware of DNA or the rings of Saturn. Such things are not mentioned in the Bible.

 

[BeyondET]

Everyone can look up at the sky and see planets. I never said they could make out things like the texture of their surface, or their rings. And the Bible doesn't have any passages about the rings of Saturn or it's texture anyway.

No everyone can only see a star that moves. I'm quite sure you couldn't pick out a planet in the night sky unless you know where to look and when and I doubt you know.

 

[BeyondET]

The Bible gives no evidence that the authors were aware of DNA or the rings of Saturn. Such things are not mentioned in the Bible.

Of course the bible would of needed a 1,000 more chapters. Scripture is for all generations including modern times. Man can read more into it now because man knows more today.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course the bible would of needed a 1,000 more chapters. Scripture is for all generations including modern times. Man can read more into it now because man knows more today.

It wouldn't take 1000 chapters to mention rings around Saturn. Most people can mention such things in a single sentence.

Reading things into scripture that aren't there, is known as eisegesis. When eisegeting the text, you need some kind of boundaries on the things you can read into the text. Otherwise you'll just change the meaning of the text overtime.

 

[The Barbarian]

Unlike Genesis, the evolution theory does not explain why humanity is sinful.

Doesn't explain the number of energy levels in the electrons of iron, either. Doesn't explain why God is three persons in one being. It only explains things that it mentions.

Shouldn't be necessary to say this, but apparently, it is. You might was well knock plumbing because it doesn't explain sin.