Is denying evolution part of Christian theology?

[lucaspa]

In several threads where non-Christians have asked "why do you believe?", several people have stated as a reason denial of evolution and other well-established scientific theories. Disagreement about mistakes over evolution has been interpreted by some as disagreeing over Christian theology (forbidden by the rules of the forum).

So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

 

[InsightSoul]

Denial of the evolution of man certainly is because man is created by God specifically in the Bible with man being alive only after God breathed in his Spirit.

It doesn't say about other things. Perhaps evolution is the process by which God created the animals.

 

[Sketcher]

No, it isn't. But at the same time, macroevolution is just a theory, and theistic evolution has its share of problems.

 

[lucaspa]

Denial of the evolution of man certainly is because man is created by God specifically in the Bible with man being alive only after God breathed in his Spirit.

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. ... Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man

So when, during embryonic development, did God breathe "the breath of life" into you and you became a "living soul"?

 

[lucaspa]

No, it isn't. But at the same time, macroevolution is just a theory, and theistic evolution has its share of problems.

So we can discuss the validity of evolution outside Christian theology? That is, if you are mistaken about macroevolution then it has no effect on Christian theology?

 

[Hentenza]

Moved to Origins Theology from Exploring Christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

So when, during embryonic development, did God breathe "the breath of life" into you and you became a "living soul"?

Before the conception.
The conception is a consequence, not a cause (origin) of a human life.

 

[lucaspa]

Before the conception.
The conception is a consequence, not a cause (origin) of a human life.

Before conception you have 2 separate cells that, separately, are not a "human life". They cannot, individually, make a person. Only when fertilization occurs do you have any chance of having a "human life".

After all, we don't think a human life has ended every time a woman has a menstrual cycle or a teenage boy has a wet dream.

If God puts a soul into a sperm and another into an ovum, then that is two souls when they come together in fertilization. We don't have two souls, do we?

 

[mark kennedy]

In several threads where non-Christians have asked "why do you believe?", several people have stated as a reason denial of evolution and other well-established scientific theories. Disagreement about mistakes over evolution has been interpreted by some as disagreeing over Christian theology (forbidden by the rules of the forum).

Disagreeing over theology is what these forums are all about, questioning whether or not someone is a Christian based on minor doctrinal differences is against the rules. I debated a Catholic seminary student over Justification by Faith, you can believe me when I tell you we had serious disagreements.

So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

Notice that you have made it a categorical rejection rather then a qualitative one. The only real doctrine that reflects Christian conviction is Adam and Eve as our first parents, the rest is extraneous. Being skeptical of Darwinism is healthy and sensible whether you are a Christian or not. If your a Christian and you don't see a conflict between New Testament theology and human/chimpanzee common ancestry then you probably don't understand either.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Dark_Lite]

The only real doctrine that reflects Christian conviction is Adam and Eve as our first parents, the rest is extraneous.

And here I thought the main part of Christianity was that Jesus guy.

 

[Darkness27]

So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

It is my understanding that God reveals to us spiritual truth, not physical truth. Evolution is a natural/physical reality, it can't conflict with spiritual truth as both are ultimately from God.

So I say denying evolution isn't part of Christian theology as God is about the spirit, not the physical. While I have strong feelings about the creationism movement, I think at the individual level accepting or rejecting evolution is of no significance to the average person regarding their spiritual state. I think it is far more important to keep the perspective that both sides of this issue are sincere Christians and we really are on the same team in the end.

 

[juvenissun]

Before conception you have 2 separate cells that, separately, are not a "human life". They cannot, individually, make a person. Only when fertilization occurs do you have any chance of having a "human life".

After all, we don't think a human life has ended every time a woman has a menstrual cycle or a teenage boy has a wet dream.

If God puts a soul into a sperm and another into an ovum, then that is two souls when they come together in fertilization. We don't have two souls, do we?

No no. You are too much into biology. This is beyond biology.

God creates a human spirit and God wants it to go to a human flesh. So, God make a particular sperm go to a particular egg. Then we have a new life.

 

[lucaspa]

No no. You are too much into biology. This is beyond biology.

In this case, biology is also the actions of God, so we can look at biology to test whether your theological hypothesis is correct.

God creates a human spirit and God wants it to go to a human flesh. So, God make a particular sperm go to a particular egg. Then we have a new life.

That is contradicted both by God's Creation (biology) and theology. Remember, there are millions of sperm released and hundreds of sperm get to the ovum. If God acted by having only one sperm destined to get to the ovum, then we would release only one sperm.

On the theological side, you still have a soul in a sperm and a soul in an ovum. That makes 2 souls. No one in theology has ever discussed half souls such that two half souls have to combine to make a whole soul.

If you say that God directs which sperm to which ovum, you have made God directly responsible for all birth defects. C'mon, if God is going to pick the sperm to go with the ovum, then God knows the genetic composition of each and knows what the result is going to be when they combine.

This confirms the problem of evil, which is one of the better arguments for atheism, or at least one of the better arguments for not worshipping God. It is impossible to believe in a "loving" God if God deliberately and directly subjects some individuals to horrific birth defects. Such a god may exist but that god is certainly not worthy of worship. At best, we could view it as a satanic god to fight against.

So, rather than discard the standard belief about God being loving and just, I am going to discard your hypothesis about when a soul is infused. Instead, I am going to go with the hypothesis that God infuses a soul somewhere between conception and birth.

Something else just occurred to me. We are starting to get into treatments involving genetic diseases. For instance, a transfusion of adult mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is being used to treat osteogenesis imperfecta. By your hypothesis God wanted that person to have OI. Afer all, you said "God wants it to go to a human flesh". By your hypothesis, this treatment would be thwarting the will of God. Rather than obeying the Great Commandment and trying to help the individual, your hypothesis would make this treatment disobedience of God. How many parents and people with OI do you think this is going to drive away from God?

Juvenissun, I think you throw ideas out there just to stir up trouble. However, you need to start thinking about the consequences of those ideas. Not only is the behavior juvenile, but it also borders on outright evil. If you are serious about your Christianity, you should not want to throw ideas out there that are going to harm God and prevent people from finding Him.

 

[paleohuguenot]

> "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the
> Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

> "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh,
> theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Hi,

The Christian Observer quote above is from the Anglican Christian Observer, not from the U.S.-based Christian Observer, begun in 1813, printed through July 2007, now a web-based publication at christianobserver.org. The U.S.-based CO has a long history of fighting the 19th-century innovations to Reformed theology coming out of Princeton.

In Christ, Bob Williams - Managing Editor - Christian Observer

 

[Duckybill]

The Bible is a Book of miracles. Nevertheless, humans continue to try to explain how the events therein happened. It's a waste of time to try to explain God's miracles. He just said "let there be" and there was.

Exodus 20:11 (NKJV)
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

Psalms 33:6 (NKJV)
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

 

[laconicstudent]

The answer is "No". The mechanism of material origins isn't relevant to Christianity, rather the spiritual is.

 

[juvenissun]

In this case, biology is also the actions of God, so we can look at biology to test whether your theological hypothesis is correct.



That is contradicted both by God's Creation (biology) and theology. Remember, there are millions of sperm released and hundreds of sperm get to the ovum. If God acted by having only one sperm destined to get to the ovum, then we would release only one sperm.

On the theological side, you still have a soul in a sperm and a soul in an ovum. That makes 2 souls. No one in theology has ever discussed half souls such that two half souls have to combine to make a whole soul.

If you say that God directs which sperm to which ovum, you have made God directly responsible for all birth defects. C'mon, if God is going to pick the sperm to go with the ovum, then God knows the genetic composition of each and knows what the result is going to be when they combine.

This confirms the problem of evil, which is one of the better arguments for atheism, or at least one of the better arguments for not worshipping God. It is impossible to believe in a "loving" God if God deliberately and directly subjects some individuals to horrific birth defects. Such a god may exist but that god is certainly not worthy of worship. At best, we could view it as a satanic god to fight against.

So, rather than discard the standard belief about God being loving and just, I am going to discard your hypothesis about when a soul is infused. Instead, I am going to go with the hypothesis that God infuses a soul somewhere between conception and birth.

Something else just occurred to me. We are starting to get into treatments involving genetic diseases. For instance, a transfusion of adult mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is being used to treat osteogenesis imperfecta. By your hypothesis God wanted that person to have OI. Afer all, you said "God wants it to go to a human flesh". By your hypothesis, this treatment would be thwarting the will of God. Rather than obeying the Great Commandment and trying to help the individual, your hypothesis would make this treatment disobedience of God. How many parents and people with OI do you think this is going to drive away from God?

Juvenissun, I think you throw ideas out there just to stir up trouble. However, you need to start thinking about the consequences of those ideas. Not only is the behavior juvenile, but it also borders on outright evil. If you are serious about your Christianity, you should not want to throw ideas out there that are going to harm God and prevent people from finding Him.

First, it is not my idea. I learned it as an ancient human wisdom. The consequences are mostly ironed out. Second, most of your replies on my idea are full of logic errors (adding/subtracting on what I said). I don't have the time to point them out one by one.

The only merit in your argument is the theological meaning of the application of modern genetics on human modification. I don't have a clear view on that. But intuitively, I think it is wrong, and we should not do it even we can. And I take what happened now as a sigh of the end time. It is very much like the picture described in the construction of the Tower of Babel.

 

[chilehed]

...So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

No, and no.

 

[JamesAH]

No

 

[mark kennedy]

So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

I'm not sure if I responded to the OP yet but just in case. In order to honestly answer that question you have to define both of your terms, this is a philosophical question after all.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

Or maybe our interpretation of science.

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh,
> theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Christians should look at theology as how God is and evolution as divine providence, God's supernatural activities in human history on the other hand are neither.

Hi,

The Christian Observer [/I]quote above is from the Anglican Christian Observer, not from the U.S.-based Christian Observer, begun in 1813, printed through July 2007, now a web-based publication at christianobserver.org. The U.S.-based COhas a long history of fighting the 19th-century innovations to Reformed theology coming out of Princeton.

In Christ, Bob Williams - Managing Editor - Christian Observer

I thought this was interesting:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These [sic] teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level – preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new – the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.” (John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26)​

I have seen sooooo many of these humanists on here. Before I started coming on CF I thought the secular humanist was something of a bogyman, now I just think they are the same pagan mystics that used to haunt ancient temples. Being an atheist does not require that you abandon God or religion, only that you redefine those terms without telling anyone.

Like the site Bob, I'll add it to my bookmarks.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The answer is "No". The mechanism of material origins isn't relevant to Christianity, rather the spiritual is.

Is the material origin of the incarnation relevant to Christianity?