Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[Indent]

It is completely false to say that the ancient Israelites associated the mind with the intestines. That seems to be your own thinking. Modern evolution assumes mind arose from 'grey matter', and why should anyone accept a word you say if evolution was true it would mean we could have no insight into objective realities! Therefore materialist evolution is no more than an explanation some people like for reasons other than its scientific merit, not an insight into objective reality. A theory with neither explanatory power, nor predictive power (if it had predicted the complexity of the eye the theory would have fallen apart) hardly even ranks as a theory, let alone fact, and within a few generations it will be completely moribund, because ID will become more plausible because we are now leaving the industrial age, and moving into the information age, and ID is a theory which comprehends and builds on information theory, whereas materialistic evolution which is really natural philosophy and not science will seem increasing outdated. Not only is being assailed by Creationists, ID theorists, but also by independent minded atheists like Thomas Nagel.

Happy trails neo-darwinism.

It's false?

You sure? Because I'm certain that translated Bible is doing a lot of work for you. That's what experts in ancient Hebrew and comparative ANE studies will tell you.

If you think people from several thousand years ago understood the human body, let alone the cosmos, the way we do, you are sadly mistaken. It's abundantly clear that these people had an ancient worldview in the Bible.

Do you need me to connect the dots?

Secondly, evolution has enormous explanatory power, and, actually, it does make predictions (I've posted examples in this thread already).

You have a poor understanding of evolution, and like an animal backed into a corner, I see you've sorted to some mad gibberish that's not worth the time.

What's this ID thing? The pretend "science" that was thrown out of the courts? Who are these ID "theorists"? Please list off some of the shills employed by Discovery Institute. Just like the tobacco companies employed "scientists" to claim cigarettes don't cause cancer, we have "scientists" working for anti-think tanks that will claim evolution didn't happen.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Experts are discounted by certain ultra-conservative factions of Christianity. There is an unbelievable anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-critical thought and anti-education bias by these groups. I don't understand it. It takes considerable study to be able to understand ancient middle-east culture (which the Israelites were a part of) and even more thought to attempt to understand it. These factions paint their modern "sensibilities" on top of what is written and come up with some seriously absurd ideas. They will scream they are right all over the place, and slam anyone who has done any study that would indicate that their ideas are remotely incorrect.

 

[SeventyOne]

It doesn't matter what station Moses occupied or whether he was well educated for the time.

It's not a question of intelligence, but of the worldview (knowledge and intellectual categories of the time). Moses could have been the most brilliant man to walk the earth, but that doesn't change the fact that ancient Israelites had an ancient "science", if you can even call it that.

These are a people that thought the mind was associated with the intestines (the brain matter was junk). These are a people that thought a solid dome covered the earth, and that the sun orbited the earth.

It's a fact that Ancient Near Eastern cultures used myths. It's a sophisticated means of communication--foreign and unusual to us.

Yes a lot of progress has been made in a 130 some years.

Perhaps our understanding of the process might be adjusted, but the fact that we evolved will not.

The worldview of Moses is a premier reason we can speak of an outside source giving Moses his writings, rather than a concoction of his own mind. Moses was raised and educated as an Egyptian. That was his worldview, and none of the Egyptian beliefs made it into the Torah, not medicine, hygiene, the Egyptian pantheon of gods, not the Egyptian creation or origin views. It is written with information completely outside his education or worldview.

In order to claim it was just the worldview at the time, according to Moses, at the very least, there would be a blending of Egyptian thought in there somewhere, but it isn't there.

 

[dms1972]

If you think people from several thousand years ago understood the human body, let alone the cosmos, the way we do, you are sadly mistaken. It's abundantly clear that these people had an ancient worldview in the Bible.

Of course, of course, but all the same its like you're reflecting what is known as 'chronological snobbery' (making an appeal on the ground that the more recent ideas are to be prefered over older ones?), for you seem to forget that most of the major discoveries that have made life easier for mankind were made in ancient times: domestication of animals, the wheel, and fire to name three. And ironically chronological snobbery in a way will likely be what nails the coffin of 19th century evolution theory.

As Physics is the gold standard in science, and physics has moved on from the outdated view of matter that evolution is based on, it may not actually be that important whether ID is taught in the schools. It may become more plausible because Physics will still be taught.

Kurt Vonnegut made some comments on the matter of an American Court disallowing the teaching of ID along with Evolution theory in American schools. It came late in a short interview which can be listened to here.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165342

Mr. VONNEGUT: Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design. It's the scientists themselves are behaving tribally.

Interviewer (Steve Inskeep): How are the scientists behaving tribally?

Mr. VONNEGUT: They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines.

INSKEEP: Does that mean you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?

Mr. VONNEGUT: Look, if it's what we're thinking about all the time; if I were a physics teacher or a science teacher, it'd be on my mind all the time as to how the hell we really got this way. It's a perfectly natural human thought and, okay, if you go into the science class you can't think this? Well, alright, as soon as you leave you can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion. Also, I think that, you know, it's tribal behavior. I don't think that Pat Robertson, for instance, doubts that we evolved. He is simply representing a tribe.

 

[Indent]

The worldview of Moses is a premier reason we can speak of an outside source giving Moses his writings, rather than a concoction of his own mind. Moses was raised and educated as an Egyptian. That was his worldview, and none of the Egyptian beliefs made it into the Torah, not medicine, hygiene, the Egyptian pantheon of gods, not the Egyptian creation or origin views. It is written with information completely outside his education or worldview.

In order to claim it was just the worldview at the time, according to Moses, at the very least, there would be a blending of Egyptian thought in there somewhere, but it isn't there.

You're wrong.

Genesis describes a 3-tiered universe, which is consistent with what other Ancient Near Eastern peoples subscribed to.

Secondly, the striking and undeniable parallels in the Mesopotamian myths, among others, also reveal the origins of these stories.

There's a reason Biblical scholarship has performed a takedown of Genesis 1-11.

 

[SeventyOne]

You're wrong.

Genesis describes a 3-tiered universe, which is consistent with what other Ancient Near Eastern peoples subscribed to.

Secondly, the striking and undeniable parallels in the Mesopotamian myths, among others, also reveal the origins of these stories.

There's a reason Biblical scholarship has performed a takedown of Genesis 1-11.

I'm not wrong, and I'm not talking about one partial subject, I'm talking about 5 books as a whole, the Torah. Had other worldviews been a part of his writings, it would be evidenced in all 5 of the books, but it's not. One can't take the Torah as a whole and write it off as some mythical worldview conglomeration. The best you can do is take a small part of it and say it has some similarities to other things, therefore it is that other thing (which is absurd in itself), but that wasn't written alone, off in a corner, by itself.

Besides, Genesis isn't the only creation account in the Bible. One has to write off quite a few non-Moses writings as well in order to discount it.

 

[dms1972]

It's false?

You sure?

They no doubt had an early conception of the enteric nervous system which scientists are only beginning to understand. But that is not what you were saying, you said they didn't understand the human body the way we do, yet they did understand in practically the same way. Reason is from above, it comes down into man, it doesn't arise from "grey matter", nor the emotions merely from what is in the gut, or why would someone weep when a close friend dies. It's the event, the loss that leads to sadness, sorrow, or depression in that case. But the gut does have an influence on mood, and seemingly can be affected by our emotions.

http://www.healthcommunities.com/general-gi-symptoms/mind-digestive-tract-connection.shtml

That's me finished here.

 

[ken777]

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female (Matthew 19:4)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27)

Jesus believed the Genesis account ... and so should His followers.

 

[pat34lee]

It must be hell to live in such a mood. I have great hope for the future...eventually there will come a time when rationality will guide mankind and the senseless, bigoted divisions among men will end. I look forward to that day!

Why would you think that has any chance of happening, short of mass lobotomies
forced drugging or mind control? There is at least 10% of the public that has no
conscience, remorse or regret. I don't see that ever changing for the better.

 

[KawaiiChristianGal]

Evolution remains a theory, not a fact.

Everyone has a choice.
Either believe God's explanation of creation and life issues.
Or don't believe.

It is a choice.
That is why God told us to choose life that we and our seed may live.

Agreed. Now I believe in micro evolution but not in the big evolution. I just don't think the two mix well though. Then again I'm a young earth creationist etc etc.

 

[pat34lee]

Yes a lot of progress has been made in a 130 some years.

Only in technology. Mentally, we're headed downhill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html

 

[John Hyperspace]

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 reconcile it by being completely honest: I simply do not know how it all literally began. I believe the Genesis account is 100% truth as to the way things were literally created. The problem is, the inability to interpret the literal side of Genesis with 100% certainty. I've studied the bible a great deal and I can say with 100% certainty that no one knows exactly how to interpret Genesis literally. I know you can interpret it, and be 'pretty confident' in your interpretation, but that doesn't work. Maybe just doesn't cut it.

But the good news is that God teaches, don't worry about the literal side of the equation, it's the spiritual side that I want you to understand. Genesis is not only literal, but is also an allegory about, coming out of the darkness of our initial state of being without God, or, truth, or, understanding; and into the light of understanding, progressing toward being formed into the image of God, that is, the image of the Son: Romans 8:29

I can indeed be certain of the spiritual side of the Genesis account, and that is all that matters to God. All of the literal/historic events in the bible are only there to create allegories about our personal relationship with God, the Holy Spirit.

I can listen to anyone's literal interpretation of Genesis and can say, it may be so. But in the end, I do not know, they do not know. It is truth, but the truth is not so easily interpreted literally. There are many different ways to interpret Genesis literally, some being at odds with science, some being very harmonious to science, some somewhere in between. But they are all uncertainties. Maybe's. And ultimately, not the point of the account at all.

But on the other end, when you say "evolution" which I recognize as a fact of science, you must then be meaning, change in the gene pool (or something to that effect) which has absolutely nothing to do with theories like abiogenesis and common descent. Those theories I can also listen to and say, it may be so. But, again, I do not know, and you do not know. That form of science itself makes no pretense about being uncertain, approximate, tentative, and very possibley completely wrong.

So as far as I'm concerned, both literal Genesis interpreters and common descent evolutionists are in the same boat: both believing something that is impossible to know for certain. Both dividing themselves from one another over something that is impossible to know. And not only impossible to know, but quite meaningless and good for nothing. It helps not a single troubled, sad, poor, sick, or person in need of help to know precisely how everything transpired in the darkened mists of a bygone past that hasn't existed for ages. In my eyes, all of material thought is a huge distraction good for nothing at all (especially knowledge) but dividing people over meaningless material trivialities.

I can see the fun of academic contemplations for the sake of a person who simply enjoys pondering over these material things, but when it's taken to the level of dividing people it's nothing but harmful to everyone.

 

[Colter]

God has His reasons for being obscure in prophecy, a large part of which IMO is a preventative against fortune telling and also serve to obscure some things from the evil one.
The Israelites (not all of them though) stumbled because they were looking through religous and prideful snakes eyes.

Anyway it is written that a number of faithful Jewish people had been waiting a lifetime snd recognised Jesus for what He was when the met Him.

Nevertheless the words that were carefully chosen in the original language are such that subsequent reflection reveals that the Person who inspired them understood and new about the subject matter intimately.

For example when the writer of Hebrews wrote: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible", we don't think that the person who penned it actually understood molecular physics but we can see that in the light of our much later observations that this statement is absolutely correct.

Rather I see the reasons as a phenomenon of finite man speculating in response to past interactions with the agents and doings of the infinite God. Those postulates lead to beliefs and expectations going forward which can be half truths or erroneous. These man made suppositions become then petrified into inflexible doctrine which so incarcerate the spiritual and intellectual capacity of the mind given to man that, even with the Son of God standing before us we can harden our harts and default to the legalism of so called "scripture".

Genesis is a creation of Holy men attempting to produce a coherent story for Israelite consumption concerning the origins of one particular culture on earth. In the construction of their narrative they culled from other narratives then in existence in Mesopotamia. The ancient story of Adam and Eve loomed large in the cultures of the region, the Hebrew redactors in Babylon (of Mosses' earlier, simpler works) sought to trace their overly important bloodlines back to Adam.

The universe is mind made and mind managed. The divine mind is the creator of the finite mind who can seek out and explore the truths of creation.

The fingerprints of the creator are all over his evolutionary creation. What we discover in the analysis of the earth is an archeological record of the purposive potential contained within our creators evolutionary technique.

Judaism itself evolved from the original agreement with Abram's blind faith, through future speculation and into the hardened, post Babylonian scripture based expectations of a Jewish Messiah.

In the same way that the Jews have scripture based reasons for rejecting Jesus, one of many Messiah claimants, Christians today reject science; evolution.

 

[Anguspure]

Rather I see the reasons as a phenomenon of finite man speculating in response to past interactions with the agents and doings of the infinite God. Those postulates lead to beliefs and expectations going forward which can be half truths or erroneous. These man made suppositions become then petrified into inflexible doctrine which so incarcerate the spiritual and intellectual capacity of the mind given to man that, even with the Son of God standing before us we can harden our harts and default to the legalism of so called "scripture".

Genesis is a creation of Holy men attempting to produce a coherent story for Israelite consumption concerning the origins of one particular culture on earth. In the construction of their narrative they culled from other narratives then in existence in Mesopotamia. The ancient story of Adam and Eve loomed large in the cultures of the region, the Hebrew redactors in Babylon (of Mosses' earlier, simpler works) sought to trace their overly important bloodlines back to Adam.

The universe is mind made and mind managed. The divine mind is the creator of the finite mind who can seek out and explore the truths of creation.

The fingerprints of the creator are all over his evolutionary creation. What we discover in the analysis of the earth is an archeological record of the purposive potential contained within our creators evolutionary technique.

Judaism itself evolved from the original agreement with Abram's blind faith, through future speculation and into the hardened, post Babylonian scripture based expectations of a Jewish Messiah.

In the same way that the Jews have scripture based reasons for rejecting Jesus, one of many Messiah claimants, Christians today reject science; evolution.

Perhaps many Christians reject Science because they confuse it with Scientism.
If more so called Scientists were honest about the distinction then perhaps there would be more respect.
As for "Evolution", the definition is so broad and covers everything from change over time, to chemical biogenesis and most things in between, that when somebody proclaims it as a "fact" it simply recognised as a dogmatic statement for true beleivers that has nothing to do with Science.
I'm even being told that car design has "evolved" nowadays, does this mean that I can declare Henry Ford as some fanciful explanatory myth for an unintelligent culture?
As for Abrams "blind faith"; what is your evidence? The Jewish writings about Him reveal a thoughtful and considered man who honestly sought the Creator and was honored for doing so. Certainly the Biblical writings reveal nothing different.

 

[Colter]

Perhaps many Christians reject Science because they confuse it with Scientism.
If more so called Scientists were honest about the distinction then perhaps there would be more respect.
As for "Evolution", the definition is so broad and covers everything from change over time, to chemical biogenesis and most things in between, that when somebody proclaims it as a "fact" it simply recognised as a dogmatic statement for true beleivers that has nothing to do with Science.
I'm even being told that car design has "evolved" nowadays, does this mean that I can declare Henry Ford as some fanciful explanatory myth for an unintelligent culture?
As for Abrams "blind faith"; what is your evidence? The Jewish writings about Him reveal a thoughtful and considered man who honestly sought the Creator and was honored for doing so. Certainly the Biblical writings reveal nothing different.

Blind faith means, Abraham indeed did trust that his descendants would eventually inhabit the land, but he knew nothing of the purpose of the subsequent Jews hosting the Son of God incarnate on earth. The Jews had NO concept of a Triune deity with a creator Son who would incarnate as human and divine on earth, returning to heaven with all power and authority given to him.

Some scientist are believers, some atheistic, some just scientist, but that doesn't discount their findings.

Its not God that changes, it's mans understanding of God that changes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The worldview of Moses is a premier reason we can speak of an outside source giving Moses his writings, rather than a concoction of his own mind. Moses was raised and educated as an Egyptian. That was his worldview, and none of the Egyptian beliefs made it into the Torah, not medicine, hygiene, the Egyptian pantheon of gods, not the Egyptian creation or origin views. It is written with information completely outside his education or worldview.

In order to claim it was just the worldview at the time, according to Moses, at the very least, there would be a blending of Egyptian thought in there somewhere, but it isn't there.

...or Moses, even though fully cognizant of the Egyptian, polytheistic worldview in which he was educated, wrote the early portions of Genesis to function as a basic repudiation of that very same Egyptian and/or other Early Bablyonian polytheism, to make way for the basic affirmation of faith in the ONE true God whom he had come to know since his encounter with the Lord in the Burning Bush.

So, assuming that Moses would have "included" a mish-mash of Egyptian tenets within his own worldview is a non sequitur ...

Edit - Okay. I just fully woke up. I get what you're saying SeventyOne, so I'll just add here that I see what you're saying, and I guess I'm in basic agreement, other than I don't think we know for sure that what is written in Genesis 1 wasn't possible for Moses to come up with on his own, if all he had to do was "invert" the polytheistic notions of the surroundings cultures of his time. (And there are some other possibilities that historical and literary critics have brought up, and of which I won't get into here since we're really trying to focus on evolution as it relates to our overall Christian faith.)

2PhiloVoid

 

[JacksBratt]

I explain 2 Timothy as being the opinion of the person who wrote it, they were talking about the OT as 2 Timothy wasn't yet scripture. Later, the church made Timothy scripture along with Pauls other letters of correspondence. "Suddenly" Pauls words were equal to Jesus'.

I've been inspired by God at times, but I wouldn't consider my writings to be Gods Word.

We obveouly aren't going to agree and that's ok.

What about these? Are they, also, just the opinion of the person who wrote it?

Matthew 28:6

"He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.

Acts 1:3

To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

John 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

How do you know the difference?

 

[dms1972]

I left 'bible christianity'

[edit]

I wonder if your problem has been more with 'literalists' rather than the Bible and rather than give up 'Bible Christianity' think about ignoring some discussions in this 'Forum christianity', and go back to the Bible.

 

[JacksBratt]

I have an 'alert' telling me "Jack'sBratt" thinks my question is 'funny' and posts no response. Obviously, his comment is empty and without foundation as he cannot explain it, let alone defend it.

I'm sorry, thought you were trying to be funny. You know, with TOE meaning "the theory of everything".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I reconcile it by being completely honest: I simply do not know how it all literally began. I believe the Genesis account is 100% truth as to the way things were literally created. The problem is, the inability to interpret the literal side of Genesis with 100% certainty. I've studied the bible a great deal and I can say with 100% certainty that no one knows exactly how to interpret Genesis literally. I know you can interpret it, and be 'pretty confident' in your interpretation, but that doesn't work. Maybe just doesn't cut it.

But the good news is that God teaches, don't worry about the literal side of the equation, it's the spiritual side that I want you to understand. Genesis is not only literal, but is also an allegory about, coming out of the darkness of our initial state of being without God, or, truth, or, understanding; and into the light of understanding, progressing toward being formed into the image of God, that is, the image of the Son: Romans 8:29

I can indeed be certain of the spiritual side of the Genesis account, and that is all that matters to God. All of the literal/historic events in the bible are only there to create allegories about our personal relationship with God, the Holy Spirit.

I can listen to anyone's literal interpretation of Genesis and can say, it may be so. But in the end, I do not know, they do not know. It is truth, but the truth is not so easily interpreted literally. There are many different ways to interpret Genesis literally, some being at odds with science, some being very harmonious to science, some somewhere in between. But they are all uncertainties. Maybe's. And ultimately, not the point of the account at all.

But on the other end, when you say "evolution" which I recognize as a fact of science, you must then be meaning, change in the gene pool (or something to that effect) which has absolutely nothing to do with theories like abiogenesis and common descent. Those theories I can also listen to and say, it may be so. But, again, I do not know, and you do not know. That form of science itself makes no pretense about being uncertain, approximate, tentative, and very possibley completely wrong.

So as far as I'm concerned, both literal Genesis interpreters and common descent evolutionists are in the same boat: both believing something that is impossible to know for certain. Both dividing themselves from one another over something that is impossible to know. And not only impossible to know, but quite meaningless and good for nothing. It helps not a single troubled, sad, poor, sick, or person in need of help to know precisely how everything transpired in the darkened mists of a bygone past that hasn't existed for ages. In my eyes, all of material thought is a huge distraction good for nothing at all (especially knowledge) but dividing people over meaningless material trivialities.

I can see the fun of academic contemplations for the sake of a person who simply enjoys pondering over these material things, but when it's taken to the level of dividing people it's nothing but harmful to everyone.

Hi John,

Even if I might not agree with everything you said (although, I think I'm good with what you've said above generally), I have to say...I like your approach. And, welcome to CF, brother!

Peace
2PhiloVoid