How could evolution be reconcilable with Christianity?

[Agartha]

From what I understand, suffering and death was a result of the original sin, but evolution requires suffering and death, and if there was no real Adam, how could there have been original sin?

 

[oi_antz]

From what I understand, suffering and death was a result of the original sin, but evolution requires suffering and death, and if there was no real Adam, how could there have been original sin?

Hi Agartha, this is the first time we have met. I'm curious to know how you have come to understand that "suffering and death is a result of original sin". To me it seems to make sense that suffering is due to someone breaking the golden rule, and death is due to degeneration.

 

[oi_antz]

I thought the Christian doctrine says that death and sin entered the world because A&E disobeyed God (or something along those lines)?

By using the word "doctrine", are you meaning that it is written in the bible? I am aware of one place where Paul talks about it:

Death in Adam, Life in Christ


12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

However, I am inclined to read this as talking about eternal (spiritual) death, that through Adam and Eve's original sin (to introduce the knowledge of good and evil to the human race), thereby every human has the knowledge of good and evil and will eventually choose to do something evil (even to lie once), thereby we are naturally condemned to be eternally (spiritually) dead. So we are all sinners by default and therefore we have no eternal life, we are spiritually dead because of our sinful nature. It is only by having a spiritual rebirth (that is, to be "born again"), that we can have our eternal life reinstated. This is what I believe Paul is talking about by saying "through the one man Jesus Christ, life was given to many" and "instead of death and condemnation we can have life and be righteous". This doctrine of rebirth and eternal life (not to be confused with "everlasting" life), is central to understanding the true consequence of original sin, and is fundamental to understanding why Jesus' sacrifice can atone for our sin.

This might be a bit confusing to grasp I suspect, but I hope I have said it clear enough convey my understanding. Of course I would welcome correction if someone can offer it

 

[CryptoLutheran]

From what I understand, suffering and death was a result of the original sin, but evolution requires suffering and death, and if there was no real Adam, how could there have been original sin?

A real Adam can exist with evolution. After all, there has to be, at some point along in the process, a sort of first truly recognizably modern human. Theistic Evolutionists (well some, not necessarily all) would argue that Adam is that first, and not necessarily significantly distinct physiologically/biologically but rather spiritually. Something that made that hominid a truly spiritual creature, having the Imagio Dei, the image and likeness of God. With that means legitimate moral and spiritual consequences.

Original Sin, at that point, describes how we, as creatures made in the image and likeness of God, departed from God's way and chose our own way.

How, at that point, death and suffering prior to this Fall fits into the whole thing is--I think--a very fair point. And yet I don't find it quite so problematic that it overturns the Christian message concerning God's victory over death and suffering for us and our ultimate hope for the glorification of all creation at Christ's Parousia.

I don't find any great difficulty accepting both the science of evolution as well as confessing the historic Christian faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dark_Lite]

From what I understand, suffering and death was a result of the original sin, but evolution requires suffering and death, and if there was no real Adam, how could there have been original sin?

This is a common creationist argument. It does not hold up to Scripture (much less scientific evidence). There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that there was some kind of immortal utopia before the Fall. Adam and Eve had to gather food to eat. Eating kills the food gathered, obviously. So, right there we have physical death and necessity of survival before the Fall.

We are left with only one conclusion: physical death, and by extension "suffering," existed before the Fall. The Fall can only refer to a spiritual death where man is cut off from God.

 

[salida]

It always has been.

Science supports Genesis
http://josephmastropaolo.com/index.html
http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation　
http://intelligentdesignfacts.com/

Scientific case for adam and eve
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-04.pdf

I don't know how its against christianity.

 

[oi_antz]

Adam and Eve had to gather food to eat. Eating kills the food gathered, obviously. So, right there we have physical death and necessity of survival before the Fall.

Hi Dark_Lite, I don't think we have ever conversed! I want to know why you chose to use the words "gather food to eat", in Genesis God says "You may eat fruit from any tree except...". The image this draws in my mind is that Adam and Eve could just walk around the utopia eating fruit. And I have in fact used a 100% fruit diet before and it's cheap and healthy. Only reason I stopped is because fruit is hard to store. So do you still believe that wandering around the garden of Eden eating fruit would have "killed the food gathered"? Is fruit a living entity? I tend to think of fruit as being an organic shell for the life contained within (the seed).

 

[SkyWriting]

A real Adam can exist with evolution. ...

Granted. But there are no other indications of support.

 

[zaksmummy]

I am certain that evolution is incompatible with christianity. To suggest so is simply, ludicrous. Every Christian who believes in evolution is either an atheist or an agnostic in disguise; Or perhaps he/she is on the verge of becoming one. Jesus, including all the prophets, were fundamental creationist.

 

[solarwave]

From what I understand, suffering and death was a result of the original sin, but evolution requires suffering and death, and if there was no real Adam, how could there have been original sin?

Well that is one interpretation of it. I take the beginning of Genesis as largely a spiritual myth. Original sin to me simply means that humans have an innate tendency to sin. This is true whether there is a God or not.

I am certain that evolution is incompatible with christianity. To suggest so is simply, ludicrous. Every Christian who believes in evolution is either an atheist or an agnostic in disguise; Or perhaps he/she is on the verge of becoming one. Jesus, including all the prophets, were fundamental creationist.

Your certain are you? From where do you get this infallible information good sir?

But seriously this isn't true. What about people who accepted evolution and then became Christians? What about people who have been evolutionists and Christians for decades? It may be true that some theistic evolutionists are moving towards atheism, but for others that wont be true.

Did Jesus believe the creation story was literally true? Well I don't know, maybe, but I'm ok with that. I'm under the impression that the Bible isn't a science book and that isn't it's purpose.

 

[s_s]

A real Adam can exist with evolution. After all, there has to be, at some point along in the process, a sort of first truly recognizably modern human. Theistic Evolutionists (well some, not necessarily all) would argue that Adam is that first, and not necessarily significantly distinct physiologically/biologically but rather spiritually. Something that made that hominid a truly spiritual creature, having the Imagio Dei, the image and likeness of God. With that means legitimate moral and spiritual consequences.

Evolution cannot produce a soul.
Also, to suggest that evolution went through the process of a pro-biotic mush (like Activia, right?) to sea squirrels and walking goldfish then eventually apes then humanoids then Adam, suggests that God was incapable of producing Adam right off the bat. Did he need to refine the form many times until he got something 'in his likeness'? Perhaps no mirrors in heaven.
No, I say to you, that there is no place in the first few verses of Genesis for evolution. A God that needs evolution to create humanity is a weak and pathetic God, and no God of mine.

 

[Celtic D]

It always has been.

Science supports Genesis
http://josephmastropaolo.com/index.html
http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation　
http://intelligentdesignfacts.com/

Scientific case for adam and eve
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-04.pdf

I don't know how its against christianity.

These websites are no more scientic than fly in the air. There is NOT a scientific case for Adam and Eve.

 

[Celtic D]

staff edit

I am a Christian and a scientist and I can assure you that science and faith are not incompatable. I too am a fundamental creationist, I fundamentally believe that God created the world - using the mechanism of evolution!

I am not an atheist or agnostic - I am nowhere near the on the verge of becoming one, my faith has never been stronger than it is now

 

[drich0150]

staff edit

Or... Perhaps these "Christians" have found a way to reconcile the creation account without having to adhere to the artificial constraints of a time not supported by scripture. (The bible does not tell us how old the world is.)

 

[s_s]

It does mate, using count-back.

 

[Celtic D]

I am not emotionally attached to anything - I have faith, I have experienced the presence of God. I don't "want" it to be true, I KNOW it is true - but no I can't prove that knowledge to you before you ask - that is why it is called faith.

I do not have to choose either, as I said before science and faith are not incompatable. Evolution would not eradicate Chrisitianity, and in no way discredits God. The creation stories are allegorical.

 

[Celtic D]

You say I remind you of yourself, are you saying that at one time you were a Christian? What happened?

You need to ask yourself though what brought you to this site tonight and posting on the Exploring Christianity forum - just maybe God is trying to entice you back to Himself

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a thread clean up.

As a reminder, the guidelines for this area are here:
Exploring Christianity FSG's - PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING!!


They include this:

We recognize that real seekers are looking for real answers, and the first reply given may be insufficient to achieve this. It is acceptable for the Original Poster (OP) to probe the answers given, and to continue the discussion on lines which help to clarify their understanding of the Christian faith. If another non-Christian seeker wishes to ask questions about the Christian faith, they may start their own thread. No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.




​

 

[ebia]

Great. The moderator deleted my post because I am not a Christian. How do you know that even half of those people are christians? This is ridiculous.

I don't think that's the reason your post was deleted.

 

[ebia]

Why else? It certainly wasn't offending. Plus, I'm sure OP wouldn't mind.

Saying some Christians are not Christians because, say, they accept the reality of evolution is contrary to forum rules.