Is denying evolution part of Christian theology?

[crawfish]

The fact is that evolution utlimately leads to a break down in morality and a rejection of God. It promotes philosophies that put the self first and without need for God. I'm not a scientist, and few on these forums actually are, so all we can do is speak of what others tell us the evidence says. And even those people grow up in traditions that tell them how to interpret the evidence for them.

You'll have to help me out here. I'm having trouble finding a time period in human history when there wasn't a breakdown of morality and a rejection of God, or when people did not engage in self-first philosophy. I even read about it in my bible.

They used to throw people in volcanoes to appease the volcano gods. Just because there are no volcano gods doesn't mean that volcanoes don't erupt. Sin doesn't come from natural things; it comes from elevating those natural things to a place above God.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

You'll have to help me out here. I'm having trouble finding a time period in human history when there wasn't a breakdown of morality and a rejection of God, or when people did not engage in self-first philosophy. I even read about it in my bible.

They used to throw people in volcanoes to appease the volcano gods. Just because there are no volcano gods doesn't mean that volcanoes don't erupt. Sin doesn't come from natural things; it comes from elevating those natural things to a place above God.

This is a good point, but I think more in my favor than yours. Civilization slowly progressed morally when Christianity was the norm for society. Yes it was still full of corruption, but people felt guilt and shame for the things they did wrong, and society, as a whole, looked down on sexual immorality and violence. The puritan morality many see as extreme by today's standards, where sexual immorality is a good thing. While people have always been corrupt, society was moving toward an ethics of Christianity, until Darwinism was introduced, and suddenly societal ethics began to backslide again. We have more similarities in morality (as a culture) to the ancient world than we do to the reformation world. It is no coincidence this backslide started with the introduction of evolution.

 

[crawfish]

This is a good point, but I think more in my favor than yours. Civilization slowly progressed morally when Christianity was the norm for society. Yes it was still full of corruption, but people felt guilt and shame for the things they did wrong, and society, as a whole, looked down on sexual immorality and violence. The puritan morality many see as extreme by today's standards, where sexual immorality is a good thing. While people have always been corrupt, society was moving toward an ethics of Christianity, until Darwinism was introduced, and suddenly societal ethics began to backslide again. We have more similarities in morality (as a culture) to the ancient world than we do to the reformation world. It is no coincidence this backslide started with the introduction of evolution.

Are you sure? I'm a bit of a student of history, and I'd disagree. While they were more moral in some ways, they were far less moral in other ways. Torture and unfair imprisonment in Christian nations was the norm. Slavery was the norm and widely accepted. Evil was rampant, even in the highest echelons of Christian leadership.

Evil only seems more rampant today because technology has made it more accessible. Need someone to blame? How about Alassandro Volta for electricity? How about Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone? How about Henry Ford for the automobile? Blame Tim Berners-Lee for the proliferation of the internet. Or thousands of other discoverers and inventors for coming up with ways to spread evil more quickly and efficiently.

I think you're going to have a hard time justifying that belief with real data. We are certainly no better morally today. But I'd wager we're no worse, either. We are just different.

 

[gluadys]

While people have always been corrupt, society was moving toward an ethics of Christianity, until Darwinism was introduced, and suddenly societal ethics began to backslide again. We have more similarities in morality (as a culture) to the ancient world than we do to the reformation world. It is no coincidence this backslide started with the introduction of evolution.

Even if the timing of this backslide were true (and I don't think that case has been made), it could indeed be a coincidence. Your argument is a logical fallacy known as "post hoc, propter hoc" which roughly translated means "since B happened after A, B is caused by A"). But the cause of B could be something entirely different.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Even if the timing of this backslide were true (and I don't think that case has been made), it could indeed be a coincidence. Your argument is a logical fallacy known as "post hoc, propter hoc" which roughly translated means "since B happened after A, B is caused by A"). But the cause of B could be something entirely different.

Thats pretty much how history works. I admit its very subjective reasoning, but I don't see what other type of argument you could use when explaining history. Granted I could use a lot more detail and reasons, but you can't test historical theories the way you can test scientific theories.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Are you sure? I'm a bit of a student of history, and I'd disagree. While they were more moral in some ways, they were far less moral in other ways. Torture and unfair imprisonment in Christian nations was the norm. Slavery was the norm and widely accepted. Evil was rampant, even in the highest echelons of Christian leadership.

Evil only seems more rampant today because technology has made it more accessible. Need someone to blame? How about Alassandro Volta for electricity? How about Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone? How about Henry Ford for the automobile? Blame Tim Berners-Lee for the proliferation of the internet. Or thousands of other discoverers and inventors for coming up with ways to spread evil more quickly and efficiently.

I think you're going to have a hard time justifying that belief with real data. We are certainly no better morally today. But I'd wager we're no worse, either. We are just different.

None of your examples carry the same philosophical implications of evolution.

Maybe I should be more clear on my point.
People are sinners. Always have been, always will be. But what has changed is the way sin is percieved on a cultural level. It WAS bad to sin, now its ok (in the eyes of the public) and even encouraged.

We're even trying to bring back the colloseum of Rome with things like UFC.

 

[shernren]

None of your examples carry the same philosophical implications of evolution.

Yeah, that's right, Christianity could never inspire racism!

If the white man attempts to oppose the Deity's will, by trying to make the negro anything else than "the submissive knee-bender," (which the Almighty declared he should be,) by trying to raise him to a level with himself, or by putting himself on an equality with the negro; or if he abuses the power which God has given him over his fellow-man, by being cruel to him, or punishing him in anger, or by neglecting to protect him from the wanton abuses of his fellow-servants and all others, or by denying him the usual comforts and necessaries of life, the negro will run away; but if he keeps him in the position that we learn from the Scriptures he was intended to occupy, that is, the position of submission; and if his master or overseer be kind and gracious in his hearing towards him, without condescension, and at the sane time ministers to his physical wants, and protects him from abuses, the negro is spell-bound, and cannot run away.

... When all this is done, if any one of more of them, at any time, are inclined to raise their heads to a level with their master or overseer, humanity and their own good require that they should be punished until they fall into that submissive state which it was intended for them to occupy in all after-time, when their progenitor received the name of Canaan or "submissive knee-bender." They have only to be kept in that state and treated like children, with care, kindness, attention and humanity, to prevent and cure them from running away.

Africans in America/Part 4/"Diseases and Peculiarities"

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh dear. Was the argument actually made that Christianity has never inspired racism? Quite untrue, as Shernen's rather devastatingly demonstrates.

 

[laconicstudent]

CUM NIMIS ABSURDUM

Leges et ordinationes a iudaeis in Statu Ecclesiastico degentibus observandae
Paulus episcopus servus servorum Dei, ad futuram rei memoriam.

Cum nimis absurdum et inconveniens existat ut iudaei, quos propria culpa perpetuae servituti submisit, sub praetextu quod pietas christiana illos receptet et eorum cohabitationem sustineat, christianis adeo sint ingrati, ut, eis pro gratia, contumelian reddant, et in eos, pro servitute, quam illis debent, dominatum vendicare procurent: nos, ad quorum notitiam nuper devenit eosdem iudaeos in alma Urbe nostra e nonnullis S.R.E. civitatibus, terris et locis, in id insolentiae proru[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e, ut non solum mixtim cum christianis et prope eorum ecclesias, nulla intercedente habitus distincione, cohabitare, verum etiam domos in nobilioribus civitatum, terrarum et locorum, in quibus degunt, vicis et plateis conducere, et bona stabilia comparare et possidere, ac nutrices et ancillas aliosque servientes christianos mercenarios habere, et diversa alia in ignominiam et contemptum christiani nominis perpetrare praesumant, considerantes Ecclesiam Romanam eosdem iudaeos tolerare in testimonium verae fidei christianae et ad hoc, ut ipsi, sedis Apostolicae pietate et benignate allecti, errores suos tandem recognoscant, et ad verum catholicae fidei lumen pervenire satagant, et propterea convenire ut quamdiu in eorum erroribus persistunt, effectu operis recognoscanti se servos, christianos vero liberos per Iesum Christum Deum et Dominum nostrum effectos fuisse, iniquumque existere ut filii liberae filiis famulentur ancillae.




And so on in like vein.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Oh dear. Was the argument actually made that Christianity has never inspired racism? Quite untrue, as Shernen's rather devastatingly demonstrates.

It actually wasn't made. I have no idea why he brought that up.

 

[BigBadWlf]

This is a good point, but I think more in my favor than yours. Civilization slowly progressed morally when Christianity was the norm for society. Yes it was still full of corruption, but people felt guilt and shame for the things they did wrong, and society, as a whole, looked down on sexual immorality and violence. The puritan morality many see as extreme by today's standards, where sexual immorality is a good thing. While people have always been corrupt, society was moving toward an ethics of Christianity, until Darwinism was introduced, and suddenly societal ethics began to backslide again. We have more similarities in morality (as a culture) to the ancient world than we do to the reformation world. It is no coincidence this backslide started with the introduction of evolution.

Since The Origin of Species was published in 1859 our society has made huge moral advancements.

The abolition of slaves
Universal suffrage
Implementation of child labor laws
Civil rights
Public education for every child
People of different religions can now worship alongside one another
The racial integration of the armed services
The end of segregation
The end of lynching
Immigration is no longer restricted by race (well maybe not in Arizona)
Non-whites appear in movies and television as things other than criminals or servants
Interracial couples can be married


Seems the world is a much better place than it was 150 years ago

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Yeah, that's right, Christianity could never inspire racism!

Africans in America/Part 4/"Diseases and Peculiarities"

What did anything I say have to do with racism? Seems weird you would jump to this. Is it because you don't have any other examples of the stuff I was talking about, so you changed the subject?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Since The Origin of Species was published in 1859 our society has made huge moral advancements.

The abolition of slaves
Universal suffrage
Implementation of child labor laws
Civil rights
Public education for every child
People of different religions can now worship alongside one another
The racial integration of the armed services
The end of segregation
The end of lynching
Immigration is no longer restricted by race (well maybe not in Arizona)
Non-whites appear in movies and television as things other than criminals or servants
Interracial couples can be married


Seems the world is a much better place than it was 150 years ago

It would seem that way if you define the state of the world by how racist people are and how good of roles black people and mexicans get in movies.

But that is only one facet morality. Political correctness is completely over shadowed by the common things that happen every day that nobody thinks
twice about.

What about the higher number of gangs? The normity of promiscuity? The ever growing dependance on drugs? The increased number of people on anti-depressants and stress related drugs. If this world is such a better place, why are more and more people seeking means of living in made up realities that things like drugs, movies, video games, sex, and violent sports have to offer?


You also talk about laws like child labour laws that are, in spirit, wonderful and moral things, but in practice almost entirely useless and counter effective. Child labour laws didn't offer any means of transition for economies where families relied on income from their children to help support them, so they ended up forcing the sweatshops from public places to underground unseen places where abuse is worse because capitalism and its strangely darwinian (albeit capitalism does precede darwinism) principles push companies to exploit people for profit any way they can.

(Your comment about arizona made me laugh)

 

[laconicstudent]

It would seem that way if you define the state of the world by how racist people are and how good of roles black people and mexicans get in movies.

But that is only one facet morality. Political correctness is completely over shadowed by the common things that happen every day that nobody thinks
twice about.

What about the higher number of gangs? The normity of promiscuity? The ever growing dependance on drugs? The increased number of people on anti-depressants and stress related drugs. If this world is such a better place, why are more and more people seeking means of living in made up realities that things like drugs, movies, video games, sex, and violent sports have to offer?


You also talk about laws like child labour laws that are, in spirit, wonderful and moral things, but in practice almost entirely useless and counter effective. Child labour laws didn't offer any means of transition for economies where families relied on income from their children to help support them, so they ended up forcing the sweatshops from public places to underground unseen places where abuse is worse because capitalism and its strangely darwinian (albeit capitalism does precede darwinism) principles push companies to exploit people for profit any way they can.

(Your comment about arizona made me laugh)

Lol, none of that has the slightest thing to do with Evolutionary Theory. You are stretching this way too far.

 

[gluadys]

Thats pretty much how history works. I admit its very subjective reasoning, but I don't see what other type of argument you could use when explaining history. Granted I could use a lot more detail and reasons, but you can't test historical theories the way you can test scientific theories.

A historian will look for the reasons for an event, but any reason won't do. There could be 50 things that happen just before B happens. But not all of them are the reason for B. If you are going to say A (evolution) caused B (reduction of moral standards) you can't do it just on the basis that A came first. You have to show that you have eliminated the 50 other things that also came first.

You also have to show that there is a causal relationship. Statistical correlations are common. But they don't necessarily mean anything. What do you make of this correlation? A study done on housing projects for people on low income found that the crime level in the projects increased for every additional story in the buildings up to the 13th floor. Beyond that, there was no further increase in crime level no matter how many stories in the building.

Do these statistics tell us anything about a causal relationship between building height and crime rates or is it just an curious coincidence?


As to the question of whether this generation is more or less moral than the 19th century, it largely depends on which criteria of morality you use. Look at one set (say, divorce rates) and today's society is much more immoral. Look at another set (say providing more equal opportunities for girls in education & employment) and today's society is much more moral.

So there is really no way to gauge whether this generation is more or less moral than its predecessors; it is both more moral and less moral in different ways that its predecessors.

And this would also indicate that evolution has nothing to do with either the decline or improvement in moral standards.

 

[shernren]

What did anything I say have to do with racism? Seems weird you would jump to this. Is it because you don't have any other examples of the stuff I was talking about, so you changed the subject?

You were talking about morality, weren't you? Well, I was born in Malaysia and I am studying in Australia, two countries where racism has been an important part of our moral history and will likely continue to be. Hence racism is always pretty heavy on my mind, and from an objective point of view I think racism has a bigger social impact than liberal attitudes to sex. (Which would be worse, legalizing gay marriage or legalizing apartheid?)

You said:

None of your examples carry the same philosophical implications of evolution.

Well I think the implication that one human could have less value than another purely because of his or her skin color is a pretty profound philosophical implication, and it came not from evolutionists but from committed Christians.

As for sex and violence, it's been documented (though I'm not sure how accurate the statistics are) that the Bible Belt of the USA has the highest national rates of divorce, cohabitation, teen pregnancies, homicides, and STDs. Hang on, aren't those the guys who don't believe in evolution?

I think the example of the Catholic clergy sex scandal also speaks for itself. On one hand sexual conservatism to the extent that even contraception is considered taboo if not outright sinful; on the other hand male "celibate" priests doing unspeakable things to little boys. You don't have to be an evolutionist to have topsy-turvy moral values; you apparently don't even need to throw your Bible away ...