Is Darwin the Devil?

[chingchang]

I notice you have replied 'No' to all my options. And advocate a 4th - simply ignore the difficulties. Well, that's your prerogative. The thing that worries me though, is that (how do I say this without being seen to contravene the moderator's exhortions not to criticise Christianity!) if the doctrine is wrong, and people believe it, and their ethics are founded on that belief, then their afterlife might not meet with their expectations.

Well...in my estimation much of the traditional doctrine is built on flimsy ground anyhow. Concerning the "afterlife"...it appears that it will not meet MANY with their expectations:

Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I really think we need take this challenge seriously, and meet it honestly. It does really matter, if you think the truth is at all important, whichever side of the debate you incline towards.

It takes some degree of faith to believe the theory of evolution is truth. We simply can't know for sure. I think the pursuit of that truth will frustrate anyone who is unbiased and honest. That said...if you really feel that this challenge needs to be taken seriously...then you are in luck Brother! It already has. Get your learn-on:

Amazon.com: Creation vs. Evolution: What Do the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal? (Examine the Evidence&#174 (9780736903516): Ralph O. Muncaster: Books

Amazon.com: Dismantling Evolution: Building the Case for Intelligent Design (Examine the Evidence) (9780736904643): Ralph O. Muncaster: Books

Amazon.com: Why Are Scientists Turning to God? (Examine the Evidence&#174 (9780736909051): Ralph O. Muncaster: Books

Amazon.com: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (9781416542742): Francis S. Collins: Books

Amazon.com: Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (9780830823147): William A. Dembski: Books

Amazon.com: Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong (9780895262004): Jonathan Wells: Books

Amazon.com: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (9780917561528): Michael Denton: Books

Amazon.com: Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner: Books

...I got tired of cutting and pasting...but there are MANY more. The answers are already there. Some answers will never be sufficient for some people bent on their own way.

CC

 

[david_x]

Hi David-x.

Thankyou for your kind reply. Do you really think that the theory of evolution has no implications for Christian doctrine? The fundamentalists don't; they perceive an attack at Christianity's very core, and I think they are right in this matter, even while being wrong about everything else.

Consider; if humanity evolved, like chimpanzees and gorillas and monkeys, from distant primate forbears, then the story of God creating Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, is simply wrong. Along with that wrongness goes the idea of a Garden of Eden, a tree of knowledge, a forbidden fruit, and a speaking serpent. Now, you may respond that you don't believe in these things, anyway, and that no Christian is bound to believe them by any creed of any church. But the thing that rests on them is the idea of original sin, and the idea that rests on that is the notion of Christ's atonement, on the cross, for that original sin. And these are core beliefs. And they are called into question, I think, by the theory of evolution.

Or perhaps you can resolve this matter for me?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

You assume I meant that evolution was an accurate theory, I did not. I simply stated that legislating it is not a great option.

While I accept the implications of evolution on my work in the medical field I do not let it compete with my faith or... reality. IMHO.

 

[Poverello78]

Religion which is the study of God has also evolved. Look at the Bible - the evolution is remarkably obvious. From Noah, to the revelation on Mount Sinai, to the message of the prophets, to the teachings of Jesus, to the teachings of Paul. I cannot see any reason that relgion will stop evolving.

^ Dangerous but brilliant answer.

Out an about, but will reply more later.

 

[wayseer]

Religion which is the study of God has also evolved.

You are using the term 'evolved' in a totally different way to which it is used in the ToE. I know it is popular practice to say 'evolve' when one means 'change'. Evolution is change - but change bought on by certain narrow scientific conditions which are defined as 'evolution'.

Certainly religion has 'changed' - but religion cannot 'evolve' - only species can do that.

 

[Adoniram]

It seems I must be a little more subtle in my approach.

Firstly, this thread is not about Darwin, despite the title. Nor is it about whether the Theory of Evolution is true. There are other forums on this board to discuss these matters.

It is about the impact and implications of Darwinism for Christianity.

I would like to solicit your opinions. It seems we have three options, at the very least:

1. Should Christianity deny evolution, and attack it's proponents, as the fundamentalist believers do?

2. Should Christianity accept evolution, and then pretend it has no important implications for Christian doctrine, as the Catholics do?

3. Should Christianity accept evolution, and accept that it has major consequences for doctrine, particularly the doctrines of original sin and of atonement by crucifixion, and radically uphaul it's thinking on these matters? I don't think any church has gone down this route, yet.

I am interested in your views, which is why I post here. But I am interested even more in why you hold these views, and what you think the consequences of the three strategies I have outlined above might be.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

1. There are parts of the study of evolution that I think Christianity should reject, parts that it should not. The fact that species change and adapt to environment has been well established and most of Christianity recognizes it. The notion that all species evolved from one common ancestor has not been proven (nor can it be), and can be arrived at only by prodigiously filling in huge gaps in the "evidence."

As far as "attacking proponents" of evolution, one must realize that there is a difference between refuting a concept and attacking it's defenders, and to make a blanket accusation that fundamentalists are guilty of the latter is extremely disingenuous.

2 & 3. In keeping with the above answer, Christians do need to realize that evolution does have implications for Christian doctrine. It erodes the foundation of the Christian belief, calling into question the truth of what God has stated in His Word.

But where evolution inflicts the most damage to Christianity is in the evangelizing of the world. In the minds of the lost, it eliminates the need for God and religion making it extremely hard for the gospel message to take root in their lives.

 

[2ndRateMind]

... Christians do need to realize that evolution does have implications for Christian doctrine.

Well, that's something we agree on, anyway. The question I have for you, though, is whether you think Christianity needs be a 'steady-state', stagnant body of knowledge, ignoring social and scientific progress, or whether you think it should be sufficiently flexible to modify itself when God sees fit to bestow on us new knowledge?

But where evolution inflicts the most damage to Christianity is in the evangelizing of the world. In the minds of the lost, it eliminates the need for God and religion making it extremely hard for the gospel message to take root in their lives.

Well, if science finds that there are errors in the Bible, and Christians refuse to admit that, it is not surprising if ordinary people look askance at Christians, I think. Are Christians to remain in a philosophical dark age, or are they to embrace new knowledge, even if that knowledge calls into question dearly held convictions that are no longer tenable?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[one11]

What I can't understand about evolution is why Neanderthal Man died and the Homo Sapien lived. There is no explanation of this?

Also, re-read the beginning of Genesis as the Hebrew word "day" is poetic in nature. It can mean an "era" or a "time span". Re-read the beginnings of Genesis... Genesis says "these are the GENERATIONS of when the Earth was made."

 

[wayseer]

What I can't understand about evolution is why Neanderthal Man died and the Homo Sapien lived. There is no explanation of this?

It's been a while since I studied this stuff but from memory - Neanderthal was the common name for Homo Erectus and a different subspecies to Homo Sapien. The theory is that H.E. had not 'evolved' as quickly as had H.S. and in the competition for food, and perhaps for women, could not compete as successful as H.S. Eventually their number, which were not that great to begin with, began to dwindle to the point where simple died out - leaving H.S. This is classic ToE stuff.

 

[marktheblake]

What I can't understand about evolution is why Neanderthal Man died and the Homo Sapien lived. There is no explanation of this?

Funny that I am just reading about this today, it is the cover story of this months edition of Scientific American. The current flavour of the month theory is that humans killed them off, based on one neanderthal showing evidence of having been wounded by a homo sapiens spear.

Also, re-read the beginning of Genesis as the Hebrew word "day" is poetic in nature. It can mean an "era" or a "time span".

Yes it can, The hebrew word "yom" means exactly the same thing as "day" in English, which means many variations. You cant just look at the word in isolation.

In every instance in the old testament where Yom is used alongside evening and morning, or a number, as in 2nd day, it has meant a 24 hour day. There is no precedent anywhere in the bible for Yom when used in that context to mean a long passage of time like millions of years.

 

[one11]

Funny that I am just reading about this today, it is the cover story of this months edition of Scientific American. The current flavour of the month theory is that humans killed them off, based on one neanderthal showing evidence of having been wounded by a homo sapiens spear.



Yes it can, The hebrew word "yom" means exactly the same thing as "day" in English, which means many variations. You cant just look at the word in isolation.

In every instance in the old testament where Yom is used alongside evening and morning, or a number, as in 2nd day, it has meant a 24 hour day. There is no precedent anywhere in the bible for Yom when used in that context to mean a long passage of time like millions of years.

There is "no precedent"? That's a pretty strong view and most people have had that view for centuries.

However, the Hebrew words in Genesis should not have been translated as evening and morning, but the Hebrew words are actually "there was darkness and there was dawn, the first "day", and again darkness and dawn (or dawning) the second day, and so on. A dawn has more meanings than morning. For instance, it "dawned on him" does not mean the word morning. Dawn can mean the beginning of something.

The beginning of Genesis is Hebrew poetry. Notice the repetition in the sentences alone. Reads like poetry to me.

I'll read your link on Neanderthal's and Homo Sapiens when I get some more time.

 

[2ndRateMind]

I think this thread is in danger of getting side-tracked. While I love to have contributions, the point of the thread is to ask what stance Christianity should adopt towards new knowledge that contradicts it's doctrine and dogma.

You may feel that it should stretch the literal meaning of it's scriptures into an allegorical one, but if that is what you feel, I think you should say that, explicitly, rather than merely implying it. Then we could examine the tactic for its pros and cons.

Best wishes, 2RM

/Edit By the way, some petty reprobate has reported me for having a link to my blog in my signature. My blog is about feeding the hungry. Here is a link, in case you are hungry, or care about people who are. It is not part of my signature. http://thehungerstop.blogspot.com /End Edit

 

[Adoniram]

Well, that's something we agree on, anyway. The question I have for you, though, is whether you think Christianity needs be a 'steady-state', stagnant body of knowledge, ignoring social and scientific progress, or whether you think it should be sufficiently flexible to modify itself when God sees fit to bestow on us new knowledge?

Col. 2
6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

Well, if science finds that there are errors in the Bible, and Christians refuse to admit that, it is not surprising if ordinary people look askance at Christians, I think. Are Christians to remain in a philosophical dark age, or are they to embrace new knowledge, even if that knowledge calls into question dearly held convictions that are no longer tenable?

Best wishes, 2RM.

1 Cor. 1
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Cor. 2
4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Cor. 3
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

1 Tim. 6
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.

The last passage just about says it all.

I cannot help it if someone looks askance at me for holding to the truth of God's Word. I will not exchange the truth for a lie.

 

[LightSeaker]

It seems I must be a little more subtle in my approach.

Firstly, this thread is not about Darwin, despite the title. Nor is it about whether the Theory of Evolution is true. There are other forums on this board to discuss these matters.

It is about the impact and implications of Darwinism for Christianity.

I would like to solicit your opinions. It seems we have three options, at the very least:

1. Should Christianity deny evolution, and attack it's proponents, as the fundamentalist believers do?

2. Should Christianity accept evolution, and then pretend it has no important implications for Christian doctrine, as the Catholics do?

3. Should Christianity accept evolution, and accept that it has major consequences for doctrine, particularly the doctrines of original sin and of atonement by crucifixion, and radically uphaul it's thinking on these matters? I don't think any church has gone down this route, yet.

I am interested in your views, which is why I post here. But I am interested even more in why you hold these views, and what you think the consequences of the three strategies I have outlined above might be.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

This lover of Jesus Christ does not believe that evolution changes any major doctrines. All evolution provides is a picture into how God creates...that's all.

.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I think my signature sums up a lot of my opinion on the subject matter.

I'm not a Biblical literalist. I don't believe that the Creation story should be taken literally. I don't believe the writers even intended for it to be taken literally the way it is by some. The point isn't to give us a scientifically accurate history of the world; even today we don't have a totally accurate description of how the earth and all it's inhabitants came into existence and we are far more advanced in scientific knowledge than the authors of Genesis were. The point is that God did it, and it's good. That's how it is inspired by God.

I don't think science or evolution threatens Christianity. It may be challenging the views of many individuals, but it's not a threat.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, to all you people who believe Genesis to be allegorical, (and I think you are right), the question must be asked - what did Jesus need to be crucified to atone for? I mean, if we are agreed there was no 'original sin', why was His sacrifice necessary?

And, before you answer with the obvious 'all our sins', then it seems to me we ought expect to answer for them for ourselves, since the whole idea of perfectly innocent individual answering for the rest of us offends even a primitive conception of natural justice. And, despite Jesus' activities, on the whole that is precisely what we expect. Generally, we believe 'good' people go to Heaven, and 'bad' people don't. And Jesus' crucifixion makes not one jot of difference to that instinctive moral reaction.

And, before you answer that we are all 'sinful', and deserve only Hell, and would end up there, if it wasn't for Jesus - why, we all have some virtue, also, some 'saving grace'. Why should what is bad about us determine our eternal fate, rather than what is good about us? Do you really think God is so misanthropic that He ignores our virtues, and would damn us all, less than perfect creatures that we are (as He made us), were it not for some gruesome cosmic bargain He as Father made with Himself as Son?

Frankly, I think Christianity needs sort out what it actually believes in respect of this matter, and if evolution provides the spur to encourage that decision, it's long overdue.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[chingchang]

Well, to all you people who believe Genesis to be allegorical, (and I think you are right), the question must be asked - what did Jesus need to be crucified to atone for? I mean, if we are agreed there was no 'original sin', why was His sacrifice necessary?

Good question. However...we simply don't know whether or not Genesis is allegorical. Just because people believe it to be allegorical doesn't make it so. Are the miracles of Yeshua allegorical?

And, before you answer with the obvious 'all our sins', then it seems to me we ought expect to answer for them for ourselves, since the whole idea of perfectly good individual answering for the rest of us offends even a primitive conception of natural justice. And, despite Jesus' activities, on the whole that is precisely what we expect. Generally, we believe 'good' people go to Heaven, and 'bad' people don't. And Jesus' crucifixion makes not one jot of difference to that instinctive moral reaction.

It seems to me the Bible teaches us that Yeshua's resurrection makes all the difference in terms of getting "good" people into Heaven.

And, before you answer that we are all 'sinful', and deserve only Hell, and would end up there, if it wasn't for Jesus - why, we all have some virtue, also, some 'saving grace'. Why should what is bad about us define our eternal fate, rather than what is good about us? Do you really think God is so misanthropic that He ignores our virtues, and would condemn us all, less than perfect creature that we are (as He made us), were it not for some cosmic bargain He as Father made with Himself as Son?

Isaiah 55:8 (NIV)
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

Micah 4:12 (NIV)
But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD; they do not understand his plan, he who gathers them like sheaves to the threshing floor.

Frankly, I think Christianity needs sort out what it actually believes in respect of this matter, and if evolution provides the spur to encourage that decision, it's long overdue.

And...of course...you are entitled to your opinion...as is everyone else. It seems more important to me that we focus on where we are going vs. where we've been:

Rev 20:11-15 (NIV)
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

In the end...who cares whether our theory of evolution is right...or Genesis is allegorical? You're talking about knowlege. But we should be seeking wisdom...which comes from God. We should be engaging the Spirit and disengaging the material world. Our flesh is but a vessel. IMHO...there is a huge hole in the mainstream theory of evolution...which takes faith to believe...just as does the creation account in Genesis. In an earlier post I provided links to books that have been written by well-educated...deep thinking authors that address some (if not all) of your concerns.

Tell us this...why is it so important to you that we get this right? What are your thoughts/speculations on this issue?

CC

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hey ChingChang

Greetings, brother.

Tell us this...why is it so important to you that we get this right? What are your thoughts/speculations on this issue?

Well, I think it important we get this right, because it has to do with the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Our ethics and morals depend on it, and on them depend all our significant decisions. Get it wrong, and we not only mess up our own eternal fates, but we mess up other people's lives in the process. And this seems to be the root of many of (what I see as) the mistakes many Christians tend to make.

As for my speculations, I regret I am not allowed to post them, except in the 'unorthodox theology' section. I tried to spell them out in an earlier post, but it was reported, and the moderators, (bless their cotton socks), removed it. But thanks for asking, anyway.

It may be that, in due course, I will get over my pique at being censored, and post where I am allowed.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

PS. I am grateful for your posted links, and may well follow up on some of them. Meanwhile, I am reading Dawkins, Dennet, McGrath, and Ward. I find they give me a passing acquaintance with the topic.

 

[K9_Trainer]

As I pointed out, the point of Genesis isn't to be a historical or scientific document of how the earth was made. It's point is to say God did it and because God did it, it's good and meaningful.

I think the same could be said for original sin. It doesn't HAVE to happen the exact way Genesis says it happened with adam and eve in a garden eating something God said not to eat. It may very well NOT be a historically accurate account. The point is that it happened. One way or another, God made a covenant with the perfect people He created and His people, having free will, chose to break that covenant and disobey Him.

How it happened is not necessary to our salvation. The fact is it happened, and because it happened, we needed Jesus to come to earth and die to save us.

So I guess in the eyes of somebody who takes Genesis literally, science could be very challenging to Christianity and devastating to some Christians. But seeing Genesis as allegorical and believing that God inspired it but allowed the authors to exercise creativity in their writing leaves for a much stronger faith that cannot be broken or destroyed by science.

God and His ways are somethings we will never fully understand here on earth and I'm more than happy to accept that and not pass more judgement on things than necessary.

 

[2ndRateMind]

I think the same could be said for original sin. It doesn't HAVE to happen the exact way Genesis says it happened with adam and eve in a garden eating something God said not to eat. It may very well NOT be a historically accurate account. The point is that it happened. One way or another, God made a covenant with the perfect people He created and His people, having free will, chose to break that covenant and disobey Him.

Hey, K9_Trainer,

What evidence is there that humanity was ever perfect? That there ever was a covenant to break? That this alleged covenant was broken, or how, or by who, or when?

Seems to me that Darwinism points to humanity gradually evolving, philosophy points to his ethics gradually developing, and theology points to his relationship with God gradually deepening. Fact is, we started out a primitive species, with primitive social mores, and a primitive conception of God. We are now considerably more sophisticated, thanks in no small way to Jesus, and others He inspired. But it seems to me that an historical and pre-historical perspective is important here, rather than a simply religious one.

How it happened is not necessary to our salvation. The fact is it happened, and because it happened, we needed Jesus to come to earth and die to save us.

Note that I am not saying Jesus went consenting to the cross for no reason, only that His reason most likely wasn't the one that it is commonly supposed to be.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[Assyrian]

Hey, K9_Trainer,

What evidence is there that humanity was ever perfect? That there ever was a covenant to break? That this alleged covenant was broken, or how, or by who, or when?

Seems to me that Darwinism points to humanity gradually evolving, philosophy points to his ethics gradually developing, and theology points to his relationship with God gradually deepening. Fact is, we started out a primitive species, with primitive social mores, and a primitive conception of God. We are now considerably more sophisticated, thanks in no small way to Jesus, and others He inspired. But it seems to me that an historical and pre-historical perspective is important here, rather than a simply religious one.

Note that I am not saying Jesus went consenting to the cross for no reason, only that His reason most likely wasn't the one that it is commonly supposed to be.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Agree with you on the perfect bit, more of that later, but it is worth pointing out Jesus death on the cross is usually described as for our sins, or for the whole world, but there is no reference to Jesus dying specifically for original sin.

I think the same could be said for original sin. It doesn't HAVE to happen the exact way Genesis says it happened with adam and eve in a garden eating something God said not to eat. It may very well NOT be a historically accurate account. The point is that it happened. One way or another, God made a covenant with the perfect people He created and His people, having free will, chose to break that covenant and disobey Him.

The description in Genesis says our creation was 'very good' but not perfect. I don't think any human could ever be perfect without Christ and even then only after the resurrection when his power fully works in us. This was God's plan from the start. Was Eve's reaction to the fruit any different to our reaction to that second helping of Death by Chocolate? Throw in a bit of ambition too. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Yes she as tempted, but it was her weak flesh that bought into the temptation just as it does with us. Compare Eve's temptation with John's description of how we are tempted 1John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. I think Adam and Eve are are really good allegorical picture of the sins of the whole human race because they were driven by the same instincts and desires we are.