Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[sfs]

So first we start with a theory of sets. There is a set that contains biologic animals. Dogs, amoebas, fish, primates, humans are all members of this set. So basically if you are a member of the animal kingdom, you are a member of this set. Then there is also a set of spiritual beings. God, angels (good and bad), etc are members of this set. So are people. So if you picture a Venn diagram, people and God (Jesus) belong in the intersection between the animals and the spiritual beings. Agree so far?

No, because I don't know what one of your categories is or if humans belong in it. I know what biological animals are but I don't know what you mean by 'spiritual beings'. Angels are understood in very different ways in different Biblical texts, from the direct presence of YHWH himself to divine or semi-divine members of the divine council, to the individual, named beings of the very late OT and intertestamental periods and on into the NT. I don't know what you mean by calling humans spiritual beings, and I certainly don't agree that humans and God are beings of the same sort. All of this means that most of your subsequent comments suppose a framework that I do not share.

What does this mean? Well, in order to be saved by faith, we need to have higher order thinking ability, as in we need to be able to understand concepts like God, sin, death, a need for saviour, eternal life, eternal suffering, etc. In order to be rulers we need to be able to make judgement calls, which at minimum requires a capacity to know what is fair and what is not fair. In order to sin, we need to have the ability to know right and wrong. What I refer to as moral capacity.

Which species in the history of the world had the capacity for this higher order brain functions? The only species that I am aware of is homo sapiens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So at this point we have defined the term "people" - homo sapiens with a soul and with a developed enough brain to grasp spiritual concepts.

From this argument, it seems that we should conclude that infants, the severely mentally ill, the comatose, and the demented are not human, since they all lack the equipment for higher order thinking ability and moral capacity. Is this the line you want to take? You are also treating all of these capacities, and personhood itself, as binary -- either we have them or we don't. In reality, at best we have these things imperfectly, and it's quite clear that there is a wide range among humans in their ability to carry out higher thinking or to grasp moral principles.

In short, I do not find this approach helpful in thinking about what it means to be human or at all persuasive as an argument about human origins. (It also contains no science, which is the part I was interested in.)

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. Think of it this way. A baby chimpanzee that grows up with humans can learn to do a lot of the things that human children can do. However a human child, at the age of 3-4, can understand what Jesus did for him. But a chimpanzee of any age cannot. Also notice that in my arguments I did not mention things like art or advanced language. My proof hinges specifically on the ability to sin (having conscience, aka ability to know right and wrong) and ability to be saved (understanding eternal God, eternal life, eternal punishment).

Do we have evidence, for example, that neanderthal believed in the afterlife? And I mean, the kind of evidence that rules out a homo sapiens person walking into a neanderthal cave and leaving that piece of evidence for us?

If your question comes down to knowing Jesus as their savior, neanderthals never had that opportunity while on earth because they went extinct. There are suggestions that they may have had views of an afterlife. They would bury their dead and decorate graves. But I wouldn't know.

Id recommend rephrasing the statement related to "brain function". It's too vague.

And I mentioned something similar to SFS earlier in this conversation as well. If a person is born without a brain, that shouldn't exclude them from being human in accordance with scripture just because they can't process thoughts on morality and salvation.

 

[olgamc]

No, because I don't know what one of your categories is or if humans belong in it. I know what biological animals are but I don't know what you mean by 'spiritual beings'. Angels are understood in very different ways in different Biblical texts, from the direct presence of YHWH himself to divine or semi-divine members of the divine council, to the individual, named beings of the very late OT and intertestamental periods and on into the NT. I don't know what you mean by calling humans spiritual beings, and I certainly don't agree that humans and God are beings of the same sort. All of this means that most of your subsequent comments suppose a framework that I do not share.

Right. By a spiritual being I mean a non-material eternal being. Of course not angels are the same, and we are not the same as God. Just like all animals are not the same and we are not the same as amoeba.

From this argument, it seems that we should conclude that infants, the severely mentally ill, the comatose, and the demented are not human, since they all lack the equipment for higher order thinking ability and moral capacity. Is this the line you want to take? You are also treating all of these capacities, and personhood itself, as binary -- either we have them or we don't. In reality, at best we have these things imperfectly, and it's quite clear that there is a wide range among humans in their ability to carry out higher thinking or to grasp moral principles.

No, of course I do not take that approach. In my argument I am not talking about specific individuals and their variation from what other individuals of their species can do. I am talking about species in general. A human baby is still a human baby because they are a homo sapiens, and homo sapiens as a species is able to be saved. If a particular human baby has a mental disorder that keeps him from understanding spiritual concepts, there is God's grace that is present for all people. Just like if a baby was not born to begin with, they would still be a human baby, still sinful, still able to be saved.

Yes, I am implying that ability to be saved or to be a sinner is a binary and a unique characteristic of the human species. If you are not a sinner you are not human. You can be more sinful or less sinful, but you can't be not sinful. In all of human history there was one and only one non-sinful person - Jesus.

In short, I do not find this approach helpful in thinking about what it means to be human or at all persuasive as an argument about human origins. (It also contains no science, which is the part I was interested in.)

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. If you wanted to see science and only science, I told you from the beginning, my approach is holistic. I included the theory of evolution (the fact that speciation does not happen over 1 generation), I included math (set theory, and proof by contradiction), I included moral values and Biblical concepts. If you cut out all of that and only leave the theory of evolution, then sure you can do that, but like I explained before, it might lead you to a wrong conclusion because you are not considering all perspectives. It's like you are choosing to look at something with 1 eye and see it in 2d, where you can look with both eyes and see it in 3d. What appears like a line in 2d might not be a line in 3d, and you would miss that. That's all.

 

[olgamc]

If your question comes down to knowing Jesus as their savior, neanderthals never had that opportunity while on earth because they went extinct. There are suggestions that they may have had views of an afterlife. They would bury their dead and decorate graves. But I wouldn't know.

Abraham did not know Jesus. He was saved through faith. That is what I mean when I say being able to be saved.

Id recommend rephrasing the statement related to "brain function". It's too vague.

And I mentioned something similar to SFS earlier in this conversation as well. If a person is born without a brain, that shouldn't exclude them from being human in accordance with scripture just because they can't process thoughts on morality and salvation.

Ok, again. Homo sapiens as a species has an advanced enough brain that individual people are able to come to a saving faith. Not all individuals do. Not all individuals can, as you mentioned, due to various kinds of mental issues and life span. But as a species we are the only species that is able to comprehend salvation.

You can think of it like this. God creates a soul, however that happens. God predestines that soul to be either saved or condemned, so sooner or later the soul is going to be either saved or condemned. For arguments sake, let's say that God puts that soul into a dog's body (however that happens). Dogs can't sin because they don't know right and wrong. Jesus did not die for dogs, and dogs can't comprehend salvation. So dogs are not saved or condemned. So that soul will never be saved or condemned. That's a contradiction.

So every soul that God predestines to be saved or condemned has to go into a human body (however that happens). Jesus died for all people, regardless of their mental ability. People (in general) can comprehend moral right and wrong and salvation. Some people do, some people don't, some people comprehend but do not accept. There are variations. But because all people are sinners and Jesus died for all people, a soul that is predestined to be saved or condemned can be saved by grace through faith, which is a gift of God, or condemned based on law and/or conscience.

It is really hard to communicate this. I believe that God matches a soul with a body. A body is a house for the soul, so God creates an appropriate house for the kind of person He wants to create. In that way, my personality or my essense (my soul) works together with my brain and my dna encoding. God doesn't put a random soul into a random body. God creates the whole person - body and soul, and the two work together. Every decision I make, including what to have for breakfast or the decision to follow Christ, is my decisions that my soul made and my brain made. Does that make sense? It's a very different perspective from what most people are used to, I think, so it might be hard to understand and it is definitely hard to communicate.

 

[Job 33:6]

Abraham did not know Jesus. He was saved through faith. That is what I mean when I say being able to be saved.

Ok, again. Homo sapiens as a species has an advanced enough brain that individual people are able to come to a saving faith. Not all individuals do. Not all individuals can, as you mentioned, due to various kinds of mental issues and life span. But as a species we are the only species that is able to comprehend salvation.

You can think of it like this. God creates a soul, however that happens. God predestines that soul to be either saved or condemned, so sooner or later the soul is going to be either saved or condemned. God puts that soul into a dog's body (however that happens). Dogs can't sin because they don't know right and wrong. Jesus did not die for dogs, and dogs can't comprehend salvation. So dogs are not saved or condemned. So that soul will never be saved or condemned. That's a contradiction.

I'm not sure that this is true, the idea that non-humans do not know right or wrong or could not sin. Does the Bible speak of the question of animal sin?

So every soul that God predestines to be saved or condemned has to go into a human body (however that happens). Jesus died for all people, regardless of their mental ability. People (in general) can comprehend moral right and wrong and salvation. Some people do, some people don't, some people comprehend but do not accept. There are variations. But because all people are sinners and Jesus died for all people, a soul that is predestined to be saved or condemned can be saved by grace through faith, which is a gift of God, or condemned based on law and/or conscience.

It is really hard to communicate this. I believe that God matches a soul with a body. A body is a house for the soul, so God creates an appropriate house for the kind of person He wants to create. In that way, my personality or my essense (my soul) works together with my brain and my dna encoding. God doesn't put a random soul into a random body. God creates the whole person - body and soul, and the two work together. Every decision I make, including what to have for breakfast or the decision to follow Christ, is my decisions that my soul made and my brain made. Does that make sense? It's a very different perspective from what most people are used to, I think, so it might be hard to understand and it is definitely hard to communicate.

I don't mind ideas. That's fine.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not sure that this is true, the idea that non-humans do not know right or wrong or could not sin. Does the Bible speak of the question of animal sin?


I don't mind ideas. That's fine.

And by animals, I don't mean dogs or cats, I mean animals such as Adams grandma.

 

[olgamc]

I'm not sure that this is true, the idea that non-humans do not know right or wrong or could not sin. Does the Bible speak of the question of animal sin?

For the purpose of this discussion, that is how I define a human, yes. Human is the only animal of the animal kingdom that knows right and wrong, and understand eternal life and eternal suffering. There is more to being made in God's image in my opinion, but I chose these characteristics for this discussion. If you disagree, could you please provide a better definition of a human?

 

[sfs]

Right. By a spiritual being I mean a non-material eternal being.

So clearly not humans, then.

No, of course I do not take that approach. In my argument I am not talking about specific individuals and their variation from what other individuals of their species can do. I am talking about species in general.

But the approach you actually take is about specific individuals. It's about some hypothetical individual first human, and your criterion for being human is being eligible for salvation, which I assume you think is an individual process, not a species-wide one.

A human baby is still a human baby because they are a homo sapiens, and homo sapiens as a species is able to be saved.

This seems to be some sort of platonic conception of species that doesn't correspond to the biological understanding of the term. A species of animals is just a collection of individuals that can interbreed, which is a fuzzy boundary. If every member of the species has some characteristic and no individual outside the species has it, then you can assign that characteristic to the species, but if some lack it, then it's not a characteristic of the species. If I don't have property X, then it doesn't make any sense to say I really do have X as a member of H. sapiens -- no, I don't have X.

In any case, if, say, you accept that human bodies and brains arose by evolutionary process and that God then did something miraculous to impart an immaterial soul that makes us special -- then you accept evolution, in the usual way these discussions are framed. You may run into disagreements with neurobiology, but nothing you're saying seems to contradict evolutionary biology.

 

[Job 33:6]

For the purpose of this discussion, that is how I define a human, yes. Human is the only animal of the animal kingdom that knows right and wrong, and understand eternal life and eternal suffering. There is more to being made in God's image in my opinion, but I chose these characteristics for this discussion. If you disagree, could you please provide a better definition of a human?

You can't equate your own personal definition of human to homo sapiens. Homo sapiens already has a taxonomic definition.

 

[olgamc]

So clearly not humans, then.

Clearly all beings that are immaterial and eternal, including humans. We are both. Our body is material biological animal. Our soul is something immaterial eternal. Look at the Venn.

But the approach you actually take is about specific individuals. It's about some hypothetical individual first human, and your criterion for being human is being eligible for salvation, which I assume you think is an individual process, not a species-wide one.

No, Adam in the Bible is a specific individual. Adam in my proof is just a person, any person. Any person is eligible for salvation because all people are eligible for salvation.

This seems to be some sort of platonic conception of species that doesn't correspond to the biological understanding of the term.

True, we don't exactly understand what a species is or how to classify people. Biological term is cannot interbreed. But homo sapiens and neanderthals did interbreed, but they are considered a different species. That to me is confusing. I steered away from that and focused on homo sapiens because we know that Adam from the Bible was homo sapiens. I can call it "human species", if you like.

A species of animals is just a collection of individuals that can interbreed, which is a fuzzy boundary. If every member of the species has some characteristic and no individual outside the species has it, then you can assign that characteristic to the species, but if some lack it, then it's not a characteristic of the species. If I don't have property X, then it doesn't make any sense to say I really do have X as a member of H. sapiens -- no, I don't have X.

Exactly. So no individuals outside of the human species have the mental capacity to sin and be saved. But if a particular individual of a human species lacks that mental capacity, it does not disqualify him from being a member of the human species. Every individual of a human species has a soul by definition. So every individual of a human species is a sinner and can be saved by grace (though not necessarily through his own mental faith decision).

In any case, if, say, you accept that human bodies and brains arose by evolutionary process and that God then did something miraculous to impart an immaterial soul that makes us special -- then you accept evolution, in the usual way these discussions are framed. You may run into disagreements with neurobiology, but nothing you're saying seems to contradict evolutionary biology.

But if I do that, I will contradict moral and theological values. So what is more important? I would rather believe that God created the world in 6 literal days and contradict all known science than believe in human evolution and contradict what the Bible teaches about salvation. When you can prove to me that there are no contradictions, then I might consider it.

 

[olgamc]

You can't equate your own personal definition of human to homo sapiens. Homo sapiens already has a taxonomic definition.

Right. I did not redefine homo sapiens. I defined human. If you disagree with my definition, you can propose one.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. I did not redefine homo sapiens. I defined human. If you disagree with my definition, you can propose one.

Your original post is equating humans with homo sapiens, which I'm saying is problematic, you can't make up your own definition and then try to correlate that with scientific definition.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your original post is equating humans with homo sapiens, which I'm saying is problematic, you can't make up your own definition and then try to correlate that with scientific definition.

For example, here's a quote from above:

"Homo sapiens as a species has an advanced enough brain that individual people are able to come to a saving faith. Not all individuals do. Not all individuals can, as you mentioned, due to various kinds of mental issues and life span. But as a species we are the only species that is able to comprehend salvation."


What I'm saying is that you can't jump back and forth between a personal definition of what a human is, and scientific concepts of species.

Either you're going to follow scientific definitions for concepts or you're not. You can't make scientific definitions conform to your personal definitions.

It would be like having a scientific definition for pizza, with a crust and pepperoni, and then I make up my own definition that a pizza is actually made of wood. And then I tried to argue that because would is dense, that therefore scientifically, pizza is wooden.

You can't just mix definitions like that. If you want to talk about science, talk about science, if you want to talk about your personal theology, that's fine too, but we don't want to jump back and forth.

 

[Job 33:6]

"We know from the Venn diagram above that if Adam's parents are not people, then they are not homo sapiens. So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. So Adam's parents had to be homo sapiens, so they had to be people, which contradicts our hypothesis."

Okay so I looked over this again, and I ran into this issue a second time, individuals are either of one species or another, even though speciation is a gradual process.

It's not a contradiction for a person to be a part of one species, but their parents to be a part of another. Even though evolution occurs in populations over time gradually.

And the reason for this is that, the concept of a species is an artificial construct, it's an artificial box that we put around animals. It doesn't have distinct boundaries. And so someone could make a statement that one individual is part of one species while another individual is part of another, even if it's a direct offspring from the prior.

 

[Job 33:6]

The argument conflates the Bibles theological concept of humanity, with a scientific concept of homo sapiens. These concepts are not equivalent.

But also, species, as a taxonomic category, is somewhat arbitrary.

"So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. "

This quote actually is not true. Because taxonomically, you're either of one species or another. You aren't half way between species.

Though speciation is a gradual process.

So, the position is incorrect in arguing that taxonomic man-made classifications are actual real life rigid categories, and then further takes that mixup and tries to apply those rigid categories to the Bible, which leaps from a modern scientific context, into an ancient context.

So it's problematic on multiple levels. And we've already addressed these concepts earlier in our conversation.

""So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. "

Here's my post from earlier today, I'll just copy a specific point here:

This quote actually is not true. Because taxonomically, you're either of one species or another. You aren't half way between species.

Though speciation is a gradual process.

So, the position is incorrect in arguing that taxonomic man-made classifications are actual real life rigid categories, and then further takes that mixup and tries to apply those rigid categories to the Bible, which leaps from a modern scientific context, into an ancient context.

It's not actually a contradiction that a parent could be a different species than a child, because the concept of species isn't so rigidly defined. There's no such thing as dissent with modification that occurs between one species and another in the sense that an animal would somehow not be any species at all.

It would be like, if you had a bunch of colored paints and you drew a line down the middle and you said that the pin on the left is white and the paint on the right is black, and you split a bunch of gray colors in half as well where the lighter grays you just started calling white and the darker grays you started calling black.

It wouldn't be a contradiction then for two shades of gray that are almost identical to be classified, one as white and the other as black, even if they appear almost identical.

Because ultimately the definition of white versus black is an artificial construct. It's just a concept that people make up to try to package animal life into ways that can be easily described.

 

[Job 33:6]

And for the reason noted above, I would say that this is the correct diagram:

But I wouldn't call the first person Adam, I would call him George in accordance with our earlier discussion. If you call him Adam, it's just going to lead to all sorts of issues with scientific concordism.

 

[olgamc]

And for the reason noted above, I would say that this is the correct diagram:
View attachment 344815
But I wouldn't call the first person Adam, I would call him George in accordance with our earlier discussion. If you call him Adam, it's just going to lead to all sorts of issues with scientific concordism.

Sure, you can call him George. I called him Adam because in my mind I can feel a proof that George and Adam are the same person. But I can't quite verbalize it yet, nor do I really want to. It's not important for this conversation.

So your point above is exactly why evolutionists and creationists argue. Science defines a species in shades of grey. It is so grey that they are still arguing whether homo sapiens and neanderthal are the same species. While the Bible clearly defines people with a very clear black and white - made in God's image, rulers over creation, sinners, able to be saved. No person is an animal and no animal is a person.

This is exactly why I think that God could have created some other animals through macro evolution. But because for God a "human species" is a very well defined category with no grey fuzzy area between an animal and a person, I believe that He created a whole new species just for people at a snap of fingers. And I don't know how He did it.

So I guess the question is - who is the authority for you? Do you believe science, where the area between an animal and a person is fuzzy and grey? Or do you believe God, where there is a clear cut black and white line?

Also, I have asked you multiple times to propose a definition of human. It is easy to disagree and criticize. It is really hard to come up with your own definition. I did my work. Please respect me next time you disagree with my definition by either proposing your definition or by logically proving that my definition is incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, I have not added or subtracted anything from the scientific definition of homo sapiens. I did not define homo sapiens. I defined a person as being a homo sapiens with a soul. And since all homo sapiens are people and all people have a soul, it follows that all homo sapiens have a soul.

Homosapiens - the primate species to which modern humans belong; humans regarded as a species.

Humans or modern humans are the most common and widespread species of primate, and the last surviving species of the genus Homo. They are great apes characterized by their hairlessness, bipedalism, and high intelligence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure, you can call him George. I called him Adam because in my mind I can feel a proof that George and Adam are the same person. But I can't quite verbalize it yet, nor do I really want to. It's not important for this conversation.

So your point above is exactly why evolutionists and creationists argue. Science defines a species in shades of grey. It is so grey that they are still arguing whether homo sapiens and neanderthal are the same species. While the Bible clearly defines people with a very clear black and white - made in God's image, rulers over creation, sinners, able to be saved. No person is an animal and no animal is a person.

This is exactly why I think that God could have created some other animals through macro evolution. But because for God a "human species" is a very well defined category with no grey fuzzy area between an animal and a person, I believe that He created a whole new species just for people at a snap of fingers. And I don't know how He did it.

The Bible doesn't clearly define people in any biological sense.

I don't think you quoted any Bible verses in your entire argument.

 

[Job 33:6]

The Bible doesn't clearly define people in any biological sense.

I don't think you quoted any Bible verses in your entire argument.

Some possibilities id like to see you work around.

A. Humans could be a subcategory of homo sapiens.
B. Humans could encompass more species than just homo sapiens.

Using Bible verses. Not just some imaginary ideas about morality.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, I'll just point out that your argument had an incorrect statement in it. So it would be nice to see the original post adjusted to reflect that.