Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[Amoeba]

Hi, I'm new, and I just wanted to expound on creationism. Also, when I use the word creationism, I also mean intelligent design.

First of all, Christians can believe in God and evolution, and be 100% content in their compatibility. If anyone states that evolution disproves god, or that you can't be a christian and believe in evolution, just know...they are full of it...

Creationism is full of logical holes and assumptions based on ideological grounds...in fact, I believe it puts God in a box, a box which he does not belong. It limits God to an interpretation not based in reality. Why is it not based in reality? Because the scientific data does not support it. Science itself allows the experiment to dictate the results. But creationists turn this on its head. They know the answer. They are simply trying to make the experiment fit into their preconceived view of reality. That is not science. And if you believe in God, you should also believe that science is the pursuit of knowing the mind of God.

Creationism relies on a false dichotemy. The creationists I have seen (i.e. Ken Ham, etc) main goal is not to prove creationism. Their main goal is disprove evolution, and the logic is, "If we disprove evolution, then creationism must be right." Unfortunately for them, disproving evolution does not prove creationism, especially given the fact that the proposition, "God created the universe", is a completely unprovable proposition within the realm of science. So to say creationism is science is a blatant oxymoron because "God" cannot be empirically studied. Intelligent design included.

Evolution says nothing about god or the existence god. If anything, if you are a Christian, you should be amazed at the fact of evolution, biological and cosmic. That God, in his logic, created a universe which evolves according to physical laws, and this evolution, after 13.7 billion years, resulted in you. It took 13.7 billion years of evolution for you to exist, and the fact that you even exist, that all the events during this insurmountable amount of time, resulted in your birth, is simply amazing. Evolution is a miracle and to deny it, in my opinion, is to deny reality. It is a fact, and if God created this universe, and us, it was done by evolution.

The Bible is full of wisdom, history, and theology. But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT. There is a real problem with creationist "science" because it is based on a non-scientific document and assumed to be the answer to all scientific questions of our origins.

One of creationists main focuses are human evolution. They just cannot believe that we evolved from ape-like ancestors, or single-celled organisms. A good one I've heard while in church was, "They want us to believe we evolved from pond scum! Pond scum." Well, perhaps not "pond scum", but we are essentially made out of dirt. Even the bible says (Gen 2:7), "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." 13.7 billion years condensed into one sentence! Amazing! All living things are made of the same carbon based chemical concoction. Yes, we are made of the same stuff as trees, fish, and yes, apes. That is not to say we are a tree or fish or an ape (though we are in the same super-family).

So to conclude. Evolution is a fact. If you are a Christian and questioning whether you can believe in God and evolution, you can! Wonder in amazement that an almost infinite number of events over a incomprehensible amount of time (13.7 billion years), led to your birth, your life, both of which, should have statistically never happened! Reflect on that.

 

[AV1611VET]

If anything, if you are a Christian, you should be amazed at the fact of evolution, biological and cosmic.

I'm not amazed though --- evolution has aquatic life coming before angiosperms.

 

[Hespera]

I think AV is right. You cant have both. its fish or cut bait.

Either its possible to measure a string to an infinite number of decimal places, or it isnt.

let common sense be your guide.

 

[Penumbra]

I think evolution and some forms of theism are compatible, but not evolution and Christianity.

Christianity relies on the concept of original sin. Evolution shows that creatures suffered and died before mankind was ever around, which means the world was never perfect unless perfection somehow includes a lot of suffering and death.

-Lyn

 

[BananaSlug]

I think evolution and some forms of theism are compatible, but not evolution and Christianity.

I have to disagree. Many of my biology/geology/etc professors accepted evolution but were Christian. They were Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian. None were Baptist.

Christianity relies on the concept of original sin.

It doesn't necessarily have to be "original sin". It depends on how you interpret Genesis.

Evolution shows that creatures suffered and died before mankind was ever around,

It never actually states that nothing died before the fall. Adam and Eve were immortal only because they ate from the Tree of Life. If nothing else ate from it, they would die.

which means the world was never perfect unless perfection somehow includes a lot of suffering and death.

It was called "perfect" either. It was called "good" or "very good".

 

[AV1611VET]

I think evolution and some forms of theism are compatible, but not evolution and Christianity.

Christianity relies on the concept of original sin. Evolution shows that creatures suffered and died before mankind was ever around, which means the world was never perfect unless perfection somehow includes a lot of suffering and death.

-Lyn

I'm not a Homo sapiens --- I have a Sin Nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was called "perfect" either. It was called "good" or "very good".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we 'copying errors'?

'Mutants' from the ocean?

God wouldn't put something into operation that relied on 'copying errors'.

 

[cinger]

Christianity and evolution, yes. Christians and evolution? Not so sure.

Glad to see that there are some others, if only relegated to anonymous corners of the interwebs. God forbid that I mention it in Church.

Maybe I'll start a facebook fan page for Christians who subscribe to evolution.

Excellent post Amoeba, thank you.

 

[Cabal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we 'copying errors'?

'Mutants' from the ocean?

God wouldn't put something into operation that relied on 'copying errors'.

Not if the event you describe as an error was part of his creation plan. Who are you to say what God is to do and not do?

What about putting into operation a "perfect" existence with a magic-entropy fruit tree of death and giving us a choice that we wouldn't actually comprehend until after the fact as the centrepiece?

 

[Cabal]

Christianity and evolution, yes. Christians and evolution? Not so sure.

Glad to see that there are some others, if only relegated to anonymous corners of the interwebs. God forbid that I mention it in Church.

Maybe I'll start a facebook fan page for Christians who subscribe to evolution.

Excellent post Amoeba, thank you.

Don't worry, there are plenty of us. Welcome to CF!

 

[anagnostic]

(Gen 2:7), "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Was the dust clean?

And did He wash His Hands afterwards?

 

[marktheblake]

Creationism is full of logical holes and assumptions based on ideological grounds.

So is evolution.

It limits God to an interpretation not based in reality. Why is it not based in reality? Because the scientific data does not support it.

What you are doing is in fact imposing your worldly views on God, and getting him to fit into that box.

Science itself allows the experiment to dictate the results. But creationists turn this on its head.They know the answer. They are simply trying to make the experiment fit into their preconceived view of reality.

No argument there, however so does the evolutionist. He has a prior commitment to materialism.

Evidence cannot speak for itself, it is always interpreted through a framework. The creationist has his framework, the evolutionist has a contrasting one.

But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT.

We know, and I have never heard anybody say that it is.

One of creationists main focuses are human evolution

.
Incorrect, the main focus by a creationist is the word of God.

Evolution is the Athiests strongest weapon against us, so of course the creationist is entitled to defend himself.

Even the bible says (Gen 2:7), "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

I like that, its a great point ! I have never heard an evolutionist bring that up before (to be honest i never considered the atheist clever enough to pick up on that point)

If you are a Christian and questioning whether you can believe in God and evolution, you can!

I agree wholeheartedly. If one believes in Jesus Christ The origins of life argument is moot. On the day of judgment JC is not going to hand us a questionnaire, with two boxes, Evolution and Creation, with the instructions
"Tick One" It is what is in our heart that matters.

However it remains my opinion that the Creation viewpoint makes so much more sense of the whole redemption thing to me, once I really began to study in depth.

i suppose many people would argure that I was indoctrinated. Sure, if its possible to indoctrinate oneself.

 

[Cabal]

So is evolution.

Such as?

What you are doing is in fact imposing your worldly views on God, and getting him to fit into that box.

As do the creationists, they just claim their personal interpretations are "truth", a priori.

No argument there, however so does the evolutionist. He has a prior commitment to materialism.

Evidence cannot speak for itself, it is always interpreted through a framework. The creationist has his framework, the evolutionist has a contrasting one.

Even so, the quality of the resulting interpretations are quite different from each other.

We know, and I have never heard anybody say that it is.

Then why the tendency to base entire creation science theories on a single person's interpretation of a single verse?

I like that, its a great point ! I have never heard an evolutionist bring that up before (to be honest i never considered the atheist clever enough to pick up on that point)

You'd be surprised, they're quite aware of that - it usually gets raised (and ignored) when creationists suggest that abiogenesis is a silly idea. Massive irony abounds....

I agree wholeheartedly. If one believes in Jesus Christ The origins of life argument is moot. On the day of judgment JC is not going to hand us a questionnaire, with two boxes, Evolution and Creation, with the instructions
"Tick One" It is what is in our heart that matters.

Definitely agreed on that one...

 

[BananaSlug]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we 'copying errors'?

'Mutants' from the ocean?

God wouldn't put something into operation that relied on 'copying errors'.

Technically it's not an "error" if it made our species better for it. If God wouldn't put something into operation that relied on "copying errors" he wouldn't curse all of creation for two people's mistakes either.

 

[Penumbra]

I have to disagree. Many of my biology/geology/etc professors accepted evolution but were Christian. They were Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian. None were Baptist.

I'm not saying that there do not exist theistic evolutionist Christians. (In fact, many do.)

But I don't think the doctrines of these religions are compatible with natural history, at least when rather mainstream Christianity is considered. I'd be interested in hearing the views of your professors, but I doubt they'd sit down and chat with little old me. So far, I haven't seen someone describe how evolution and original sin can fit together well.

It doesn't necessarily have to be "original sin". It depends on how you interpret Genesis.

It never actually states that nothing died before the fall. Adam and Eve were immortal only because they ate from the Tree of Life. If nothing else ate from it, they would die.

It was called "perfect" either. It was called "good" or "very good".

True. I make the mistake of calling it perfect often when it does not say perfect. I've never learned what the original language uses for that part. It seems odd to me that a god that is considered "perfect" would make a non-perfect system right from the start, though...

When I discuss this with Christians, most say that things did not die before the fall, because death is due to sin. Most tell me that God is benevolent, a "god of the living", and that suffering and death are due to sin.

If one disagrees with this view and feels that god created a world in which death and pain are a natural state of things, I'd be interested in hearing their views.

-Lyn

 

[theFijian]

I think evolution and some forms of theism are compatible, but not evolution and Christianity.

Christianity relies on the concept of original sin.

Original sin is not an essential of the Christian faith. Paul lays out the essentials, 'things of first importance', in 1 Cor 15 from v3 and doesn't talk about 'original sin'.

Evolution shows that creatures suffered and died before mankind was ever around, which means the world was never perfect unless perfection somehow includes a lot of suffering and death.

Except Genesis 1 doesn't describe the world as perfect. The words used in the original Hebrew for 'good' and 'very good' simply convey the idea of God taking pleasure in what he created. But we know that some folk round here aren't interested in anything outside the good old King Jimmy version.

 

[Bombila]

I don't see why even creationists couldn't take that 'good' passage and run with it. Perhaps (given God the Creator) God understood that a 'perfect' system would be stagnant - nothing new could ever happen, nothing new could ever be born, everything would just be a repeating perfection. Which might be pretty, but perhaps not very satisfying to a Creative Being.

But if God made the universe to be 'good', perhaps 'good' meant "It will do what I want it to do, sustain itself, grow, change, new things will emerge".

 

[AV1611VET]

But we know that some folk round here aren't interested in anything outside the good old King Jimmy version.

--- And I thank your King James VI for being obedient to God's call for a new Translation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see why even creationists couldn't take that 'good' passage and run with it.

You mean 'very good'?

After six times pronouncing it 'good', He steps back and pronounces it all 'very good'.

The sum is greater than the whole of it's parts.

 

[theFijian]

--- And I thank your King James VI for being obedient to God's call for a new Translation.

Sproul et al did a better job being obedient to their call with the ESV