Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[Neogaia777]

I could be wrong, but it seems like you may be projecting. Indent didn't say it bothers him that others believe in God, nor did he say that God doesn't exist. I think he's simply asking for an explanation and valid argument as to how Christianity and evolution can be reconciled. I personally haven't heard much of a decent explanation yet.

They may not be able to (yet) for they are both still in the dark, currently... The most people can do is propose the problems with the ways in which both are currently thought of and believed and change and alter them, or throw the current pre-conceived ideas and notions about them both completely "out the window" in exchange for something else or new ones...

God Bless!

 

[Bethany311]

I'm a Christian.

I believe in God, and even believe God created us. I just don't view Genesis as a journalistic account of material origins.

But some Christians conflate literalism with inerrancy, and literalism with "true" Christianity.

I spend a lot of time with Christians that tell me there a "controversy", and that evolution is "easily" disproved (on numerous occasions). On occasion, Christians make much more offensive comments on the matter.

It's helpful to hear where you stand so that posters don't fall into the trap of assumption and start to tell you what you believe, when they in fact have no idea. But I hope you didn't take my last statement as directed at you. I was meaning to say that I haven't heard much of a decent explanation or argument yet in response to your opening post. I find it interesting myself, and wouldn't mind sinking my teeth into it more. I've had similar questions lately.

 

[ken777]

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 find this a very interesting subject as I don't know a lot about it. My limited understanding is that the evidence for evolution is the fossil record, similarities in structure & DNA, and observable adaptation. None of this persuades me that descent from a common ancestor is the only explanation of the diversity of life. I do not see how this evidence precludes the possibility that humans were created directly by God. It seems to me that science says evolution is the only explanation because they reject divine creation.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I don't believe everything Answers in Genesis believes, but the article I quoted is sound. But their belief on a young Earth is correct.


...

Riiiiiiiiight....and I've got a bridge I'll sell you...it's in the desert, but you'll see...it'll be the best bridge ever...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I could be wrong, but it seems like you may be projecting. Indent didn't say it bothers him that others believe in God, nor did he say that God doesn't exist. I think he's simply asking for an explanation and valid argument as to how Christianity and evolution can be reconciled. I personally haven't heard much of a decent explanation yet.

What would qualify as a "decent" explanation? I think I've given some suggestion as to the kind of explanation that works best, but ... for some reason, many people here have little to no interest in delving into it.

2PhiloVoid

 

[bbbbbbb]

Just to be clear, I think there are some reasonable objections of the Virgin Birth. As noted, they can't be discussed here. But saying that it is scientifically impossible isn't a reasonable argument, because it would make any kind of involvement by God in the world impossible.

There are certainly theologians who take that position. No doubt there are some at Dubuque. In fact one of our former pastors was that way. But I don't think most of those who reject inerrancy do so because they reject the idea of God doing things in the world. Rather, they think that God called Israel and sent his son, and the Bible was written by people in response to that. As with most questions, there are extremes on both ends. We don't need to adopt inerrancy to avoid the opposite extreme.

Thank you for the clarification. I hope I did not paint a picture that every theologian and minister of the PCUSA holds an extreme position. There are many nuances, such as you described. However, the rejection of biblical inerrancy does open a can of theological worms, for better or worse.

 

[rockytopva]

When God created the earth he set it up to be self sufficient. Evolutionist have ignored the complexity of life and the chemistry of earth in their analysis.

 

[Jamie Lee]

If the earth was created in 6 literal days, but the sun wasnt created until the 4th day, what were those first 3 days all about?
Where did the light and darkness and evening and morning come from?

 

[Bethany311]

What would qualify as a "decent" explanation? I think I've given some suggestion as to the kind of explanation that works best, but ... for some reason, many people here have little to no interest in delving into it.

2PhiloVoid

I'll check it out and may get back to you with my thoughts. I think people don't delve into it or other posts for that matter, because most people want to believe what they want to believe, whether it's true or not, and prefer to be blind to all else because they are happy or comfortable with their belief. I am sometimes guilty of this myself, but also have other reasons for not exploring certain posts up to a point, because of my own evidences or experiences that make the arguments irrelevant to me. But I'll check yours out in more detail and see what I can find...

 

[Deadworm]

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?

(1) Before there was a Trinity, there was an OT Binity: Yahweh and divine Wisdom personified. Not surprisingly, then the earliest understanding of "the Trinity" (Greek: "trias") consists of God, His Word (Logos), and His Wisdom (Sophia) (so Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch c. 180 AD). Thus, in personifying Wisdom, Proverbs can speak of Her as if She were a distinct Person from Yahweh, who can speak for Herself. When She speaks, She can play a role similar to Mother Nature: e. g. 8:30-31: "I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence, at play everywhere on his earth, delighting to be with the children of men." Here, Lady Wisdom implies that God allowed her to assist in creation through divine "play," a poetic insight that seems quite compatible with Mother Nature creating through random natural selection and genetic mutation rather than through a totally preplanned process.

(2) The implication is that God does not micro-manage the universe and that human affairs, indeed life in general, are governed by time and chance, precisely the underlying assumption of evolution. Hence Ecclesiastes 9:11 can say:
"I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all."

(3) Darwin's prediction of the discovery of many "missing links" has proven true with breath-taking accuracy. But one of the key problems that this creates for theology is the nature and scope of the afterlife. For example, consider just 3 ancient human ancestors: the australopithecines, homo erectus, and then various stages of the genus homo. The evolution of apelike creaturss to upright apelike creatures, to human antecedents with ever increasing brain size, an anatomical developments that become more and more human raise an important question: At what point , if ever, in this oh so gradual process do human predecessors or members of the homo genus become souls destined for postmortem survival? Does homo erectus or homo habiles survive death? It is hard to believe that fully modern humans are suddenly imbued with an immortal soul that was denied to their immediate ancestors.

Of course, this problem arises from our assumption that nonhuman animals don't survive death. Certainly, the OT implies that death is the end for animals. But most of the OT also implies that death is the end for humans! The Book of Daniel is the latest OT book; and Daniel 12:2-3 is the only clear OT text to imply a hope for human resurrection. Through progressive revelation, both Christianity and the Judaism of late antiquity come to believe in postmortem human survival. But then, why not include animals within the umbrella of postmortem survival? Some NDEs, for example, imply the presence of animals in heaven and the reunion of beloved pets with their masters. However, this possibility raises an even more profound question: What would be the form of postmortem animal survival and what would be its relationship with human survival beyond the grave? Such questions vex and fascinate me as a convinced Christian evolutionist.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

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

And so...the long and short of your answer please? Where do you come down on evolution...sounds like pro...millions of years huh? Bible tells me that's quite inaccurate.
Now if there was a scientist old enough (this is to say millions of years old, patient enough and observant enough with oh such careful record keeping and I was a like-kinded careful auditor of this scientist's records and found them accurate I might be believing that Satan is pulling some really sophisticated tricks. There are many flaws with the theory of evolution, however, which scientists...of the highest caliber and notability (I'll mention Hawkings here again, but down through history the scientists who actually discovered the most about the universe accepted the Bible's teachings. Creationists will never consider themselves naive or outmoded by the Johnny-come-latelies/ theorize-by-the-seat-of-their-pants scientists. Why? Because we have the Truth. We are not to accept science over Scripture. We do not as Christians say point A is to start with the knowledge collected by the world and then piece out what the Scriptures mean. Rather, our starting point is having faith in the Scriptures and then to test all other knowledge as for its accuracy according to what is said in them.

II Corinthians 10:4-5:
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I'll check it out and try to get back to you with my thoughts. I think people don't delve into it or other posts for that matter, because most people want to believe what they want to believe, whether it's true or not, and prefer to be blind to all else because they are happy or comfortable with their belief. I am sometimes guilty of this myself, but also have other reasons for not exploring certain posts up to a point, because of my own evidences or experiences that make the arguments irrelevant to me. But I'll check yours out in more detail and see what I can find...

Your answer sounds dangerously close to what Satan in the form of a snake said to Eve...
Genesis 3:4-5:
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

hmmmmmm

 

[Indent]

I find this a very interesting subject as I don't know a lot about it. My limited understanding is that the evidence for evolution is the fossil record, similarities in structure & DNA, and observable adaptation. None of this persuades me that descent from a common ancestor is the only explanation of the diversity of life. I do not see how this evidence precludes the possibility that humans were created directly by God. It seems to me that science says evolution is the only explanation because they reject divine creation.

Firstly, science doesn't say "evolution is the only explanation." It is, however, a conclusion that's been arrived at from enormous amounts of evidence.

It doesn't preclude that God could have created us de novo.

But if we take the creation accounts literally, and ignore what biblical scholarship, archaeological finds, comparative work with ancient Near Eastern cultures, hundreds of years of science, etc., we are faced with some interesting questions.

If scientists used the chicken genome to predict the precise location of the pseudogene (non-functional vestigial gene) concerned with producing egg shells in humans, what are we to make of that? The evangelical scientist Francis Collins raises the question, if "creationism" is true (literal account of Genesis) is God a deceiver?

It makes perfect sense on evolution, it makes no sense with creationism.

If God engineered the particular details of our world (where evolution is profoundly verified), but yet Genesis is to be taken as literal, what does that say about God?

 

[Jamie Lee]

Hmmm. Pretty mystified why nobody has answered my question yet.

 

[ken777]

Firstly, science doesn't say "evolution is the only explanation." It is, however, a conclusion that's been arrived at from enormous amounts of evidence.
It doesn't preclude that God could have created us de novo.

If that is true then how can you say that evolution is fact?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Firstly, science doesn't say "evolution is the only explanation." It is, however, a conclusion that's been arrived at from enormous amounts of evidence.

It doesn't preclude that God could have created us de novo.

But if we take the creation accounts literally, and ignore what biblical scholarship, archaeological finds, comparative work with ancient Near Eastern cultures, hundreds of years of science, etc., we are faced with some interesting questions.

If scientists used the chicken genome to predict the precise location of the pseudogene (non-functional vestigial gene) concerned with producing egg shells in humans, what are we to make of that? The evangelical scientist Francis Collins raises the question, if "creationism" is true (literal account of Genesis) is God a deceiver?

It makes perfect sense on evolution, it makes no sense with creationism.

If God engineered the particular details of our world (where evolution is profoundly verified), but yet Genesis is to be taken as literal, what does that say about God?

I believe then that it clearly states/concludes that evolution is false...for Scripture says God is not a man that He should lie. You choose science over Bible I see b/c you are awed by the science over and above God's account...you are making a clear choice though...realize this.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thank you for the clarification. I hope I did not paint a picture that every theologian and minister of the PCUSA holds an extreme position. There are many nuances, such as you described. However, the rejection of biblical inerrancy does open a can of theological worms, for better or worse.

Alas, contradictions within the bible open that can of works without regard to the theory of evolution.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

If the earth was created in 6 literal days, but the sun wasnt created until the 4th day, what were those first 3 days all about?
Where did the light and darkness and evening and morning come from?

Your point??

 

[Jamie Lee]

Your point??

How can it be possible for the earth to be created in 6 literal days if days didnt exist yet?

 

[ken777]

If the earth was created in 6 literal days, but the sun wasnt created until the 4th day, what were those first 3 days all about?
Where did the light and darkness and evening and morning come from?

I think most Biblical Christians do not have a problem with the word "day" meaning a period of time because the word is used that way in other places in Genesis (eg Genesis 2:4)