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

[ThinkForYourself]

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

Logically, no. Because if evolution is true, the bible is wrong.

In reality, yes. Because Christians need to make them compatible, the other two choices being quite distastefull: Give up their faith, or go Full Romo.

 

[Davian]

If animals don't have the potential for
eternal life, or souls, then they are
intended for us to use as food.

Jesus fed people fish. Evidently he
was not concerned for their long
and blissful Nemo like fish life.

Are bacteria people too?

They are us.

"The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body's mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health."

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body

 

[kristina411]

I haven't done the research on this subject yet so I dont have an educated opinion but as I stands now I'm under the assumption (from what little I know thus far) that two things are happening. 1. 6000 years is possibly an inaccurate time frame for countless reasons and 2. Evolution as some believe have holes ( such as the supposed jump from Australopithecus to homo erectus.)

I know that it supposedly goes further and this is why I admit I am unknowlegable for now. Eventually I will get to that part but I am taking each angle at a time and my faith has yet to be shaken. No science of the earth can bind God.

 

[Ryukil]

I haven't done the research on this subject yet so I dont have an educated opinion but as I stands now I'm under the assumption (from what little I know thus far) that two things are happening. 1. 6000 years is possibly an inaccurate time frame for countless reasons and 2. Evolution as some believe have holes ( such as the supposed jump from Australopithecus to homo erectus.)

I know that it supposedly goes further and this is why I admit I am unknowlegable for now. Eventually I will get to that part but I am taking each angle at a time and my faith has yet to be shaken. No science of the earth can bind God.

It takes a wise person to acknowledge that they need more information to make a valid opinion. Kudos.

 

[Shemjaza]

I haven't done the research on this subject yet so I dont have an educated opinion but as I stands now I'm under the assumption (from what little I know thus far) that two things are happening. 1. 6000 years is possibly an inaccurate time frame for countless reasons and 2. Evolution as some believe have holes ( such as the supposed jump from Australopithecus to homo erectus.)

I know that it supposedly goes further and this is why I admit I am unknowlegable for now. Eventually I will get to that part but I am taking each angle at a time and my faith has yet to be shaken. No science of the earth can bind God.

It's well worth looking into.

I can provide you with a picture that shows that the "jump" from Australopithecus is often exaggerated:

B and C are examples of Australopithecus afarensis, and you can see that they don't stand out too much from the crowd.

 

[SkyWriting]

Belief is not a choice. I cannot consciously decide what I believe in. Can you?

Perhaps you are more comfortable with synonyms:

accept admit conclude consider have hold regard suppose think trust understand accredit affirm buy conceive credit deem posit postulate presuppose swallow attach weight to be certain of be convinced of be credulous be of the opinion count on fall for give credence to have faith in have no doubt keep the faith lap up place confidence in presume true reckon on rest assured swear by take as gospel take at one's word take for granted

 

[SkyWriting]

They are us.

"The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body's mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health."

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body

A good point. Physically, we are comrades.

 

[Queller]

Logically, no. Because if evolution is true, the bible is wrong.

No, it simply means that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is wrong.

 

[Ryukil]

I'm not sure how people could look at those fossils and not acknowledge that human beings have changed over time, but meh.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure how people could look at those fossils and not acknowledge that human beings have changed over time, but meh.

20

 

[ThinkForYourself]

No, it simply means that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is wrong.

And other stuff too. A couple of things that come to mind:

The biblical cure for leprosy/skin disease? Wrong.

Noah's flood? Wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The biblical cure for leprosy/skin disease? Wrong.

What Biblical cure?

If you're referring to Leviticus 14, they were already healed of leprosy, and the blood sprinkling was a ceremonial act to that effect.

 

[kristina411]

Thank you for the comments and information. I will take those into account and readdress the subject at a later time. I'm flooded with my own searching through the bible in other areas, research into this will wait until a later date. But I will get to it.

Knowledge is power. I'm excited to dive in, when its time.

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

Yes, they do:

Evolution is a living theory, evolution is the change of traits in populations over time, it will happen subsequent to the beginning of life whether created or otherwise. Evolution is compatible with creation because it is subsequent to it. The naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism are another matter.

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?

Natural selection is a phenomenon whereby populations decrease the over all size dramatically, often facing extinction. That has little to do with normal adaptive evolution which is cyclical and intrinsic in living systems as a blessing of God's divine providence. I see no serious issues arising from the semantics of Darwinian natural selection because that's all it really is.

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?

The Stone Age Ape man myth is a fantasy, nothing else. The raw assumption that the human brain could have arisen from that of apes has no empirical basis in the life sciences, especially what we know from genetics.

4. Where did original sin come from?

Disobedience. See Romans 5.

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).

I accept evolution as well, I just don't equivocate evolution with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Davian]

Belief is not a choice. I cannot consciously decide what I believe in. Can you?

Perhaps you are more comfortable with synonyms:

accept admit conclude consider have hold regard suppose think trust understand accredit affirm buy conceive credit deem posit postulate presuppose swallow attach weight to be certain of be convinced of be credulous be of the opinion count on fall for give credence to have faith in have no doubt keep the faith lap up place confidence in presume true reckon on rest assured swear by take as gospel take at one's word take for granted

Would it have not been easier just to type "no"?

 

[Queller]

And other stuff too. A couple of things that come to mind:

The biblical cure for leprosy/skin disease? Wrong.

Absolutely. Sprinkling the blood of a dove on a leper and wiping the blood of a lamb on a leper's right ear, right thumb, and right big tow will not cure leprosy. I don't know how YECs rationalize that one.

Noah's flood? Wrong.

Not necessarily wrong but certainly not global. It also may have been allegorical.

 

[Queller]

What Biblical cure?

If you're referring to Leviticus 14, they were already healed of leprosy, and the blood sprinkling was a ceremonial act to that effect.

Bull.

Leviticus 14:7

And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

 

[hrmsy]

I believe the basic problem is due to conjecture, and our faith is not supposed religion or simply theological. In philosophic debate in secular fields the "determinist's are pitted against the "free will " thinkers. It is humorous, and tragic that the church has been enthralled with such debate over the centuries. Determinist's place their hope on altering the outcome of man by changing genetical characteristics, and religious determinist's believe that we are predestined by God. Free will thinkers are confident their choices will lead to "perfection". Christian believer's believe that God accepts their choices and judges. It is humorous to me the similarities of thought surrounding religion and secular human thought, and that while there are obviously much more involved in these "scholarly approaches" the reality is much more tragic.
Tragic in this point God "is", and from the point of "sin" is "grieved". Speaking first with Adam "where are you, what have you done". Like a grieved parent who discovers their child drank the poison under the sink that they forbade them to do.
Making Christianity and evolution compatible is a deceitful endeavor that comes about by delusion. They cannot be compatible. The purpose of one is to solely scientifically refute God by denying research that contradicts their position. The only position is Truth. It is eternal, and when expressed in a temporal place it has no validity. Examining evidence that is temporal cannot accept the eternal reality... in the face of truth this natural realm of existence is irrelevant. Because God loves this creation of His Christians are deluded into thinking He approves of it, and is restoring creation to Himself. It will be "translated, changed, and replaced fully with a new creation, an eternal one. Peter says "it will be rolled up as a scroll and burned". Evolution is not compatible with Truth. Now you make your Christianity to be what you want.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bull.

Leviticus 14:7

And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

Again, he is already clean.

Obviously we're talking about a ceremonial cleansing here, aren't we?

 

[Ryukil]

20

The problem with the "diseased human hypothesis" (we need an actual term for this) is that that would mean all humans on the Earth were cursed for their sins at the same time. I mean H. erectus is found all over the Old World. Are you prepared to claim that everyone on the planet was cursed for some specific sin at the same time, and that it was a few thousand years ago?
I mean, according to this idea, Adam and Eve, or their children would have had to devolve into H. erectus, and then evolve again into modern H. sapiens? I mean, that would not fit with the Biblical description at all....
Unless you count the Nephilim or something like that.

The fact is, H. erectus and H. sapiens did not coeexist. That's why we think one evolved into the other.