Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[klutedavid]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

Hello Indent.

You said.

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean,
the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

The species problem, the definition of a 'species', is almost impossible to define.
Given that a species is the lowest rank in evolutionary hierarchy, one would be lead
to believe that the definition of 'species' would be very precise.

The species problem is a mixture of difficult related questions that often come up
when biologists define the word "species". There are a wide range of approaches to
defining how we identify species and how species function in nature; each approach
is known as a species concept. The number and types of species concepts which exist
are constantly changing, but there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.

Biological reality means that a definition that works well for some organisms (e.g., birds)
will be useless for others (e.g., bacteria) particularly due to concerns regarding if the species
reproduces asexually or sexually.

The scientific study of the species problem has been called microtaxonomy. One common,
but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an organism belongs to,
because reproduction isolated groups may not be readily recognizable, and cryptic species
may be present.

"No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more
divided than as to what should be understood by this word." Nicholson (1872, p. 20).

"Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species
has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937, p. 310).

"The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms"
Haldane (1956).

"The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should
identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001).

"First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with
philosophical questions that require — but cannot be settled by — empirical evidence."
Pigliucci (2003).

"An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is
that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain
species is an hypothesis (not a fact)" Bonde (1977).

"We show that although discrete phenotypic clusters exist in most [plant] genera (> 80%), the
correspondence of taxonomic species to these clusters is poor (< 60%) and no different between
plants and animals. ... Contrary to conventional wisdom, plant species are more likely than animal
species to represent reproductively independent lineages." Rieseberg et al. (2006).

 

[klutedavid]

54% vs 42% among all American Christian denominations according to Pew.

Among Mainline Denominations and Catholics it's ~65% vs ~30%, so a 2/3rds majority.

Among Evangelicals it's 48% vs 57%, and with the margin of error on those groups it could even be 50/50.

So "it's not a problem for most Christians" – assuming we're talking about here in the States – is an accurate statement.

Hello Steve.

You may need to clarify the figures you posted.

'65%' is that referring to a belief in creation, or is that a belief in evolution.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

I feel you are lacking in your faith and so evolution seems very plausible or probable to you. Do you know that top scientists of our day do not see evolution as either? Steven Hawkings for instance debunks it in favor of a theory that intelligence had to have been imported here from another planet...which and where...perhaps planet heaven? by God? I have read some from both sides and I know my Bible well and I know my God...He doesn't deceive us in His Word...either it is all Truth or it is all false...can't pick and choose...that would make you your own God...without faith we do not know God. God sets up tests of faith and yes evolutionary teachings can present a challenge to the faith of some...turn to Him and ask Him to show Himself to you through the Scriptures and get a grip and save yourself. You sound entirely derailed.

 

[SteveCaruso]

'65%' is that referring to a belief in creation, or is that a belief in evolution.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The 65% I quoted includes all who answered "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" in the affirmative. From there, there were three categorical breakdowns of that 65% which included natural processes (no specified theology), a theological component to that evolution, or that the respondent didn't know or didn't care.

 

[SeventyOne]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

Evolution is just an interpretation of evidence by certain segments of academia. And as it turns out, an inaccurate interpretation. The only way it's "proven" is because they've declared their interpretation as accurate, and then proceeded to belittle those with alternate interpretations of the evidence.

 

[SteveCaruso]

'65%' is that referring to a belief in creation, or is that a belief in evolution.

And then I re-read what you said and realized that I misunderstood what you wrote (and could have been a lot more straightforward).

The 65% refers to those who *do* believe in evolution of some conventionally-understood variety.

 

[dms1972]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

Evolution theory explanatory? I am not sure how it amounts to anything more than 'Darwinism of the gaps'

What about the 'myth' of evolution, isn't it depicted quite often in mythic manner through animated films and such?

Does myth therefore always mean 'it didn't really happen'?

People can accept or reject 'explanatory' theories, and should reject them if they 'explain away', rather than explain what we know of our human nature. But christians are not really talking about an explanatory theory in the first chapters of Genesis, rather its mainly revelatory. So christianity allows for the possiblity of a variety of explanatory theories, but reject any underlying philosophical presuppositions attached them like materialism. They are quite entitled to do this.

But a theory is not explanatory if it attempts to say in effect water can rise above its source. If you start from the impersonal, plus time, plus chance, you can't arrive at cosmos, living organisms, personality, mind, or if so how?

An atheist Thomas Nagel argues that the materialist neo-darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. (See the book Mind and Cosmos if you like)

He writes:

'no viable account, even a purely speculative one, seems to be available of how a system as staggeringly functionally complex and information-rich as a self-reproducing cell, controlled by DNA, RNA, or some predecessor, could have arisen by chemical evolution alone from a dead environment.'

How we define 'myth' is important, mythic stories are about events taking place in what might be called 'Great Time' (Mircea Eliade), like at the beginning of Time. It seems to me quite possible God raised an early mythic story through various human retellings and corrections till it became revelatory, and an account of a true creation.

However 2Philovoid's link which introduces the concept of 'cosmogonies' may be a better way of looking Genesis chapter 1.

 

[paul becke]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

 

[dqhall]

I have personally witnessed some of the creative powers of God. Mankind is not the highest form of life in the universe. I do not accept complex life originated with a virus. Mankind alone is not capable of eternal life as stars explode or burn out and black holes exert extreme forces in parts of the universe.

Creation as defined in Genesis as to six days and six nights does not agree with the geological chronology taught in universities.

Peter wrote in one of his letters: 2Peter3:8 But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. When I do not take the meaning of the day literally as Peter advised, I might see life on earth began much earlier.

 

[paul becke]

How is it that you are so 'out of the loop', Indent, as to believe such nonsense concerning so-called evolution ? Don't listen to biblical arguments on here, but, instead, look up the website, 'uncommondescent.com', and follow the posts on a variety of scientific topics, but most notably molecular biology and 'evolution'.

Moreover, you should note and bear in mind that medicine, science, and certainly evolution, have no idea whatsoever as to either the nature or the origin of life.

As for courting controversy, that is basically the purpose of the forums. Unfortunately, absence of all but the most limited evolution (size of finches' beaks) is the reality.

 

[Winken]

I don't believe evolution is a religion.

I do, however, believe some Christians are too puffed up with pride and conceit to have a proper engagement with the challenges that face Christianity today.

We are "puffed up" by the Holy Spirit, in whom all Truth resides.

 

[Winken]

People are quite experienced in making decisions based on imperfect evidence. We do it ll the time. You're making a kind of weird argument, I think, that we can't believe any source of information that isn't perfect. That's not a position we take anywhere else in life.

In fact I think inerrancy is a lousy way to convince people to trust the Bible. There are plenty of things in the Bible that are reasonable if we evaluate the Bible as a normal historical source. But inerrancy ties our acceptance of the whole thing together. So if any of it becomes impossible to take historically, our whole faith is likely to collapse.

CF doesn't permit discussion of the Virgin Birth. I will point out however that that isn't equivalent to the matters I referred to. We have specific evidence for the big bang, the age of the universe, and evolution. We have no specific evidence for a human father for Jesus.

..........and that's according to who? Presbyterians?

 

[Winken]

Notice the terminology. Also notice that the timeline seems to roughly match with the evolutionary timeline (first fish were created, then birds and mammals, etc)
The Creation of the World

1 In the abeginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was bwithout form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.
---->And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.<----

3 And God said, c“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 --->God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.<---

6 And God said, d“Let there be an expanse1in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made2the expanse and eseparated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were fabove the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.3 And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, g“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,4 and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, h---->“Let the earth <----sprout vegetation, plants5 yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 ---->The earth brought forth vegetation,<---- plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, “---->Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for isigns and for jseasons,6 and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”<----- And it was so. 16 And God kmade the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to lrule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, ---->the fourth day.<------

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds7 fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So mGod created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying,n“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “----->Let the earth bring forth living creatures<------ according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, o“Let us make man8 in our image, pafter our likeness. And qlet them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

rmale and female he created them.

I cant seem to be able to apply fonts, so arrows are added for emphasis.

You can just type Genesis 1 and click on the highlighted link. It will all appear on your screen.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolution theory explanatory? I am not sure how it amounts to anything more than 'Darwinism of the gaps'

What about the 'myth' of evolution, isn't it depicted quite often in mythic manner through animated films and such?

Does myth therefore always mean 'it didn't really happen'?

People can accept or reject 'explanatory' theories, and should reject them if they 'explain away', rather than explain what we know of our human nature. But christians are not really talking about an explanatory theory in the first chapters of Genesis, rather its mainly revelatory. So christianity allows for the possiblity of a variety of explanatory theories, but reject any underlying philosophical presuppositions attached them like materialism. They are quite entitled to do this.

But a theory is not explanatory if it attempts to say in effect water can rise above its source. If you start from the impersonal, plus time, plus chance, you can't arrive at cosmos, living organisms, personality, mind, or if so how?

An atheist Thomas Nagel argues that the materialist neo-darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. (See the book Mind and Cosmos if you like)

He writes:

'no viable account, even a purely speculative one, seems to be available of how a system as staggeringly functionally complex and information-rich as a self-reproducing cell, controlled by DNA, RNA, or some predecessor, could have arisen by chemical evolution alone from a dead environment.'

How we define 'myth' is important, mythic stories are about events taking place in what might be called 'Great Time' (Mircea Eliade), like at the beginning of Time. It seems to me quite possible God raised an early mythic story through various human retellings and corrections till it became revelatory, and an account of a true creation.

However 2Philovoid's link which introduces the concept of 'cosmogonies' may be a better way of looking Genesis chapter 1.

Thanks for the referral, DMS1972, but I'll bet you 10 to 1 that just about no one on here will click the link I offered in my previous post and actually read the article by Conrad Hyers all the way through. Oh well! I guess I'll just have to love my assorted brothers and sisters in Christ anyway, despite the dozen or so ways we all try to wrestle with the meaning of Genesis 1-3 ...

2PhiloVoid

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have not seen anyone demonstrate a new creature evolving from another creature, only variations of the same kind of creature, so to claim evolution as fact is in my mind, entirely ludicrous.

Assuming I hadn't, why would that make a difference?

One of the characteristic misunderstandings about evolution is usually under the argument of something like, "cats become dogs." I'm not saying that is what your argument is, but this is a common one that exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory.

To properly assess what you mean by "a new creature evolving from another creature" you'd have to explain what you mean, precisely.

Because, for example, that numerous kinds of dog--what we refer to as "breeds"--are merely all variations within the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris. Since the domestic dog is a subspecies of wolf.

Speciation is specifically that phenomenon wherein changes in a population result in a new species; the working definition of a species has to do with fertile offspring resulting from a pairing. Horses and donkeys are separate species because even though they can successfully reproduce, the resulting offspring is infertile.

Speciation is said to occur when two populations descended from a common ancestor are no longer, when re-introduced, to produce fertile offspring.

While speciation is understood to usually takes many, many generations to happen, it has been observed in modern times, here is an example:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Another phenomenon is the case of what are known as ring species, such as the Larus gulls,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larus#Ring_species

Neighboring populations can interbreed, but one end of the "ring" and the other end of the "ring" cannot interbreed.

At this point, one might be tempted to say that we're still talking finches or gulls, etc. And that's fine, but the classification of organisms is a human construct--we're doing the classification, organisms don't classify themselves.

For example, we can say that coyotes and wolves are both canines. And that's accurate. But by the same token both canines and ursines are caniforms. The canine lineage and the bear lineage share a common ancestor, the same way that coyotes and wolves share a common ancestor. And that's really all there is to it.

The mechanism for changes in populations is natural selection, and this is readily acknowledged and observed even by those who reject evolution.

A cat will never produce a dog, but it's entirely possible for several populations of domesticated dog if they only breed among themselves, to over enough time be unable to breed with other populations of dogs, or wolves, and they would be regarded a new species. And this happening among populations of animals all over the world, over thousands--millions--of generations over the course of millions of years and this is precisely what we know of as evolution and its explanatory power in describing the diversity of life on earth. The only difference between what you describe as "variations of the same creature" and evolution is merely time and scale. Because given enough time variations of the same creature can result in two or more "new" creatures that share a common ancestor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HighwayMan]

It was not until I visited and lived in America did I encounter Christians who did not believe in evolution. I was pretty mystified, because all other Christians I had met, from different traditions, up until that point had not questioned evolution.

It's one of those things where evangelism controls with fear of hell. If you disagree with their teaching, no matter how much the evidence points to the contrary, you are supposedly betraying Jesus - so logic or no logic, they keep at it.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

"Theory" of Evolution. Evolutionists don't consider their field a fact.
And to the contrary your last remarks sound exactly like that what is intending to court controversy.

 

[Armoured]

Assuming I hadn't, why would that make a difference?

Because if you don't understand what something says, you can't really criticise it.

 

[klutedavid]

One of the characteristic misunderstandings about evolution is usually under the argument of something like, "cats become dogs." I'm not saying that is what your argument is, but this is a common one that exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory.

To properly assess what you mean by "a new creature evolving from another creature" you'd have to explain what you mean, precisely.

Because, for example, that numerous kinds of dog--what we refer to as "breeds"--are merely all variations within the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris. Since the domestic dog is a subspecies of wolf.

Speciation is specifically that phenomenon wherein changes in a population result in a new species; the working definition of a species has to do with fertile offspring resulting from a pairing. Horses and donkeys are separate species because even though they can successfully reproduce, the resulting offspring is infertile.

Speciation is said to occur when two populations descended from a common ancestor are no longer, when re-introduced, to produce fertile offspring.

While speciation is understood to usually takes many, many generations to happen, it has been observed in modern times, here is an example:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Another phenomenon is the case of what are known as ring species, such as the Larus gulls,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larus#Ring_species

Neighboring populations can interbreed, but one end of the "ring" and the other end of the "ring" cannot interbreed.

At this point, one might be tempted to say that we're still talking finches or gulls, etc. And that's fine, but the classification of organisms is a human construct--we're doing the classification, organisms don't classify themselves.

For example, we can say that coyotes and wolves are both canines. And that's accurate. But by the same token both canines and ursines are caniforms. The canine lineage and the bear lineage share a common ancestor, the same way that coyotes and wolves share a common ancestor. And that's really all there is to it.

The mechanism for changes in populations is natural selection, and this is readily acknowledged and observed even by those who reject evolution.

A cat will never produce a dog, but it's entirely possible for several populations of domesticated dog if they only breed among themselves, to over enough time be unable to breed with other populations of dogs, or wolves, and they would be regarded a new species. And this happening among populations of animals all over the world, over thousands--millions--of generations over the course of millions of years and this is precisely what we know of as evolution and its explanatory power in describing the diversity of life on earth. The only difference between what you describe as "variations of the same creature" and evolution is merely time and scale. Because given enough time variations of the same creature can result in two or more "new" creatures that share a common ancestor.

-CryptoLutheran

Hello VC.

I read the link 'evolution.berkeley.edu', the question arises. Is this observed speciation
or is this just hypothesis?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

Dear Indent:

I used to be an atheist, so I know how you feel. You believe you are correct. But yet it bothers you that others believe in God. However, ask yourself, if God was not real, then why I am bothered by others believing in God? For does it bother you that people today believe in a flat Earth?


...