Do you think Christianity and evolution are compatible? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Ryukil]

I'm more interested to hear theistic evolutionists explain how the two are compatible, but for those who don't accept it feel free to explain why as well.

For those Christians who DO accept evolution:
1. Don't the genealogies given in the Gospels from Jesus to Adam cover ~6000 years?

2. While evolution is an interesting and creative way to create life, it is also cruel. Natural selection is CRUEL. Creating bacteria and viruses, animals that need to survive by killing and eating other animals...yeah. If God used evolution...it's basically an assembly line of death, disease, etc., to create the "finished product" - humans. Why would he utilize such a method? Also, how did disease and death exist in a pre-sin world?

3. If humans are special, in that they have souls, when was the soul first introduced into humans? Was it ~ 180,000 years ago when H. sapiens first emerged, or did H. erectus or H. habilis have souls?

4. Where did original sin come from?

Thanks for your time! I accept evolution by the way, and am searching to see if there can be compatibility that is INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND CONSISTENT (that's the important part for me. If my worldview is going to be logical, it needs to stand up to scrutiny).

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity and evolution are not compatible.

The former is wheat, and the latter is tares.

 

[sfs]

I'm more interested to hear theistic evolutionists explain how the two are compatible, but for those who don't accept it feel free to explain why as well.

For those Christians who DO accept evolution:
1. Don't the genealogies given in the Gospels from Jesus to Adam cover ~6000 years?

The genealogies are not historically accurate.

2. While evolution is an interesting and creative way to create life, it is also cruel. Natural selection is CRUEL. Creating bacteria and viruses, animals that need to survive by killing and eating other animals...yeah. If God used evolution...it's basically an assembly line of death, disease, etc., to create the "finished product" - humans. Why would he utilize such a method?

Psalm 104:
"20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then people go out to their work,
to their labor until evening.
24 How many are your works, Lord!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
27 All creatures look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground."
Are lions and other predators part of the good work of creation or not? As for why God would choose to create this kind of world rather than some other, we have no clue.

Also, how did disease and death exist in a pre-sin world?

Same way they do now.

3. If humans are special, in that they have souls, when was the soul first introduced into humans? Was it ~ 180,000 years ago when H. sapiens first emerged, or did H. erectus or H. habilis have souls?

Could be. Could be that "soul" is just a word we use to describe a capacity for reason and spiritual awareness, one that developed gradually.

4. Where did original sin come from?

Depends on what you mean by original sin. Our tendency toward selfishness, pride and destructive behavior has obvious connections to our primate relatives, and looks very much like something we inherited from our non-human ancestors. I don't see any reason to think that there's some kind of inherited guilt, though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'ld have to say that imo it is not compatible.

But there's this saying: "only 2 kinds of people take scripture literally... fundamentalists and atheists"

Off course I don't agree to the stereotype, but there is off course some truth in there.
For me, I'm an atheist so in essence I'ld have to rely on the word of theists to tell me about their religion.

At the same time, when it comes to scripture, it seems to me that those who wrote that actually meant it. They believed it. They kinda took it literally.

So I wonder why we should read it as if it isn't meant to be read as written.
It seems to me like trying to hunt for "hidden messages" that the authors weren't even aware of when they wrote what they wrote - since they meant it literally.

If the authors didn't mean it literally, I'ld be interested to hear the argument for that.
In absence of such arguments/evidence, why should I assume that they didn't mean what they wrote? It's not like it wasn't common place to literally believe in magic, demons, angels, demi-gods, miracles and other supernatural shenannigans in those days.....

 

[AV1611VET]

But there's this saying: "only 2 kinds of people take scripture literally... fundamentalists and atheists"

There's another saying:

"If the devil can't get you to hit the breaks, he will get you to step on the gas."

Atheists take interpreting the Scriptures too far.

As when they interpret Them as espousing geocentrism.

Knowing the difference between what is literal and what is figurative is what we call Biblical maturity.

 

[High Fidelity]

Before my faith was kick-started, I did believe in Evolution(Theistic); Now I do not.

The bible is pretty clear on origins.

 

[selfinflikted]

Simple question, simple answer.

If you're a Biblical literalist, then the Bible is not compatible with evolution.

If you're not a Biblical literalist, I don't see why the two can't be reconciled.

 

[Ryukil]

Christianity and evolution are not compatible.

The former is wheat, and the latter is tares.

Do you live in Guam now?

 

[sfs]

I'ld have to say that imo it is not compatible.

But there's this saying: "only 2 kinds of people take scripture literally... fundamentalists and atheists"

Off course I don't agree to the stereotype, but there is off course some truth in there.
For me, I'm an atheist so in essence I'ld have to rely on the word of theists to tell me about their religion.

At the same time, when it comes to scripture, it seems to me that those who wrote that actually meant it. They believed it. They kinda took it literally.

I think it's highly unlikely that they meant it literally in the way that you mean. Our notions of literal reading are very much a product of modern culture.

So I wonder why we should read it as if it isn't meant to be read as written.
It seems to me like trying to hunt for "hidden messages" that the authors weren't even aware of when they wrote what they wrote - since they meant it literally.

If the authors didn't mean it literally, I'ld be interested to hear the argument for that.
In absence of such arguments/evidence, why should I assume that they didn't mean what they wrote? It's not like it wasn't common place to literally believe in magic, demons, angels, demi-gods, miracles and other supernatural shenannigans in those days.....

I have no doubt the authors believed a variety of things that weren't true. But as far as reading, do you have any familiarity at all with ancient or even medieval literature? Ancient historians, for example, routinely composed speeches and inserted them into their histories. Were they being deceptive, or writing something they didn't believe to be true? No, that was just an accepted part of history-writing. If you look at the way New Testament writers, or the writers of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, treat earlier Jewish scriptures, you'll find that they felt great freedom to interpret them in ways that strike us as highly non-literal, yet they obviously took the truth of those scriptures very seriously.

 

[Ryukil]

The genealogies are not historically accurate.


Psalm 104:
"20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then people go out to their work,
to their labor until evening.
24 How many are your works, Lord!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
27 All creatures look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground."
Are lions and other predators part of the good work of creation or not? As for why God would choose to create this kind of world rather than some other, we have no clue.


Same way they do now.


Could be. Could be that "soul" is just a word we use to describe a capacity for reason and spiritual awareness, one that developed gradually.


Depends on what you mean by original sin. Our tendency toward selfishness, pride and destructive behavior has obvious connections to our primate relatives, and looks very much like something we inherited from our non-human ancestors. I don't see any reason to think that there's some kind of inherited guilt, though.

I like your idea about the soul, but isn't the whole point of Jesus dying to wash away original sin, which is inherited from Adam? I don't understand how you can accept Christianity without believing in original sin. If you don't believe in original sin, what did Jesus die for?

Also, as far as the disease thing, a lot of Christians tend to believe that disease came about as a result of "the Fall." The world was contaminated by evil, or something like that.

 

[Ryukil]

There's another saying:

"If the devil can't get you to hit the breaks, he will get you to step on the gas."

Atheists take interpreting the Scriptures too far.

As when they interpret Them as espousing geocentrism.

Knowing the difference between what is literal and what is figurative is what we call Biblical maturity.

About that, here's an interesting letter from a Cardinal saying that the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun would destroy the Christian religion.

You may or may not find it relevant to the current arguments about evolution and see how in a few centuries all Christians might reinterpret parts of the Bible to fit with evolution.

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html

 

[Ryukil]

Simple question, simple answer.

If you're a Biblical literalist, then the Bible is not compatible with evolution.

If you're not a Biblical literalist, I don't see why the two can't be reconciled.

It's not that simple. You can't be a Christian without believing in Adamic sin nature etc.

 

[Ryukil]

I think it's highly unlikely that they meant it literally in the way that you mean. Our notions of literal reading are very much a product of modern culture.


I have no doubt the authors believed a variety of things that weren't true. But as far as reading, do you have any familiarity at all with ancient or even medieval literature? Ancient historians, for example, routinely composed speeches and inserted them into their histories. Were they being deceptive, or writing something they didn't believe to be true? No, that was just an accepted part of history-writing. If you look at the way New Testament writers, or the writers of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, treat earlier Jewish scriptures, you'll find that they felt great freedom to interpret them in ways that strike us as highly non-literal, yet they obviously took the truth of those scriptures very seriously.

Something I find very difficult to understand are Christians who acknowledge that the Bible is flawed. Was God not capable of preserving it? If you acknowledge parts of it may be false, why believe it at all?

 

[selfinflikted]

It's not that simple. You can't be a Christian without believing in Adamic sin nature etc.

You can be a Christian while realizing that Adamic sin nature etc is a metaphor.

 

[sfs]

I like your idea about the soul, but isn't the whole point of Jesus dying to wash away original sin, which is inherited from Adam? I don't understand how you can accept Christianity without believing in original sin. If you don't believe in original sin, what did Jesus die for?

Sin. Why does it have to be original or inherited? Original sin wasn't really a concept in Judaism at the time of Jesus, yet people had no trouble understanding that they needed something to be in a better relationship with God.

Also, as far as the disease thing, a lot of Christians tend to believe that disease came about as a result of "the Fall." The world was contaminated by evil, or something like that.

Yeah, I know. The only real problem with that view is that it's just not true. Death, disease and predation were around for hundreds of millions of years before the first humans.

 

[sfs]

Something I find very difficult to understand are Christians who acknowledge that the Bible is flawed. Was God not capable of preserving it? If you acknowledge parts of it may be false, why believe it at all?

Why would you ever start with the idea that it was flawless? If you believe in Christianity only because you believe the Bible to be without error, why do you believe that about the Bible?

 

[selfinflikted]

Why would you ever start with the idea that it was flawless? If you believe in Christianity only because you believe the Bible to be without error, why do you believe that about the Bible?

Exactly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm more interested to hear theistic evolutionists explain how the two are compatible, but for those who don't accept it feel free to explain why as well.

For those Christians who DO accept evolution:
1. Don't the genealogies given in the Gospels from Jesus to Adam cover ~6000 years?

2. While evolution is an interesting and creative way to create life, it is also cruel. Natural selection is CRUEL. Creating bacteria and viruses, animals that need to survive by killing and eating other animals...yeah. If God used evolution...it's basically an assembly line of death, disease, etc., to create the "finished product" - humans. Why would he utilize such a method? Also, how did disease and death exist in a pre-sin world?

3. If humans are special, in that they have souls, when was the soul first introduced into humans? Was it ~ 180,000 years ago when H. sapiens first emerged, or did H. erectus or H. habilis have souls?

4. Where did original sin come from?

Thanks for your time! I accept evolution by the way, and am searching to see if there can be compatibility that is INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND CONSISTENT (that's the important part for me. If my worldview is going to be logical, it needs to stand up to scrutiny).

You make the assumptions that are not necessary in the Christian worldview first of all.

Perhaps you can tell me what your worldview consists of to even discuss whether or not it stands up to scrutiny.

 

[Loudmouth]

but for those who don't accept it feel free to explain why as well.

As a former christian, I don't see why evolution would be any less compatible with christianity than gravity, atoms, or germ theory.

We have two sources of information. One is the Bible which can be read literally or figuratively. We have the universe around us which can only be taken literally. In my estimation, if the literal Bible and the literal Creation conflict, then you should opt for the figurative interpretation of the Bible.

The only other options are to conclude that God made fake evidence in the Creation, or that the Bible did not come from God. I don't see those as valid options for most christians.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another issue that I often see in these discussions is how we view myths in the modern age. Today, "myth" has the connotation of being a lie. This wasn't necessarily so in past ages. Myths were, and still are, a valid way of describing how we relate to beliefs, morality, and each other. No one thinks that the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell was a big lie because none of the events in the book actually happened. No one thinks that the book does not contain important truths because it is an allegory or myth. Instead, we find important truths in common myths, and they help us communicate those truths from generation to generation.