I think this is a good place to repost this list. Has anyone done a survey to determine the combined memberships of these various groups in the US (easy to compare apples and apples that way)? I know that not every member of a denomination will hold with the beliefs of its leaders, but it is a good place to start.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church:
The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.
"Historical criticism" is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.
The Presbyterian Church:
In response to recent discussions regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has placed on their web page a 1969 Theological Statement on the issue, indicating that, "Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists...We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction"
The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), meeting in June 2002 approved a statement that "Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture," and that "a natural explanation of the history of nature is fully compatible with the affirmation of God as Creator."
The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. [now part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)] issued statements in 1982 and 1983 opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:
Affirms that, despite efforts to establish "creationism" or "creation-science" as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.
The Episcopal Church:
A statement by Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is open to the idea of evolution. The statement concludes, "The divine creativity can be equally proclaimed in both the creation stories and the theory of evolution."
The Catholic Church:
In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated the following:
"Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence...In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points...
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
And here is the Pope again:
Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.
United Methodist Church:
In his response to the Draft Report of the Task Force on Science and Theology to the 2004 General Conference, W. Richard Turner states, "Evolution is a scientific fact, not someone's opinion or belief. Why cannot evolution be a part of an intelligent design? Wouldn't evolution be an extremely elegant and subtle way for God to accomplish God's purposes?"
Rev. Phil Wogaman asks, "Did life evolve from one-celled organisms, as most scientists believe? Probably...Do the school children of Kansas and other states need to be spared exposure to the well-founded scientific theory of evolution? That theory is not inconsistent with the religious doctrine of creation. It is not about whether God created the world, but about how." (It is stated that Rev. Wogaman's commentary does not necessarily represent the official view of the United Methodist Church.)
In 1984, the Iowa Annual Conference passed a resolution opposing "efforts to introduce 'Scientific' creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools."
Greek Orthodox:
The Church web page includes an article by Rev. George Mastrantonis. Rev. Mastrantonis states, "The theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being. It does not dismiss the existence of God with a Design and Purpose for the Creation. The Judaic-Christian concept of God accepts any truth from any aspect of life without fear of losing its faith in God as a Supreme Intelligent Being" Rev. Mastrantonis does express some concern regarding any concept of evolution which excludes a creator.
Orthodox Church in America:
In answer to a question, Fr. John Matusiak states, "Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing -- evolutionary, if you will -- process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis...Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."
Jewish Theological Seminary:
The Torah's story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin's theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah's entire religious worldview and value system. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated.
Orthodox Judaism:
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations references an article which states, "Belief in science and belief in the Creator are absolutely consistent...In Genesis, the Torah describes a gradual process of creation from simple to more complex organisms: first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This, of course, is the same evolutionary process proposed by science." The article states that the "days" of Genesis represent six epochs or stages of creation, and is very clear that the process of creation was guided by God.
The groups which I have seen come out and take a position directly contrary to evolution are:
The Assemblies of God (the denomination in which my father was a pastor, and which I still attend).
The Jehovahs Witnesses
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Seventh Day Adventist
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
The Evangelical Lutheran Church:
The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.
"Historical criticism" is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.
The Presbyterian Church:
In response to recent discussions regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has placed on their web page a 1969 Theological Statement on the issue, indicating that, "Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists...We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction"
The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), meeting in June 2002 approved a statement that "Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture," and that "a natural explanation of the history of nature is fully compatible with the affirmation of God as Creator."
The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. [now part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)] issued statements in 1982 and 1983 opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:
Affirms that, despite efforts to establish "creationism" or "creation-science" as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.
The Episcopal Church:
A statement by Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is open to the idea of evolution. The statement concludes, "The divine creativity can be equally proclaimed in both the creation stories and the theory of evolution."
The Catholic Church:
In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated the following:
"Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence...In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points...
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
And here is the Pope again:
Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.
United Methodist Church:
In his response to the Draft Report of the Task Force on Science and Theology to the 2004 General Conference, W. Richard Turner states, "Evolution is a scientific fact, not someone's opinion or belief. Why cannot evolution be a part of an intelligent design? Wouldn't evolution be an extremely elegant and subtle way for God to accomplish God's purposes?"
Rev. Phil Wogaman asks, "Did life evolve from one-celled organisms, as most scientists believe? Probably...Do the school children of Kansas and other states need to be spared exposure to the well-founded scientific theory of evolution? That theory is not inconsistent with the religious doctrine of creation. It is not about whether God created the world, but about how." (It is stated that Rev. Wogaman's commentary does not necessarily represent the official view of the United Methodist Church.)
In 1984, the Iowa Annual Conference passed a resolution opposing "efforts to introduce 'Scientific' creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools."
Greek Orthodox:
The Church web page includes an article by Rev. George Mastrantonis. Rev. Mastrantonis states, "The theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being. It does not dismiss the existence of God with a Design and Purpose for the Creation. The Judaic-Christian concept of God accepts any truth from any aspect of life without fear of losing its faith in God as a Supreme Intelligent Being" Rev. Mastrantonis does express some concern regarding any concept of evolution which excludes a creator.
Orthodox Church in America:
In answer to a question, Fr. John Matusiak states, "Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing -- evolutionary, if you will -- process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis...Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."
Jewish Theological Seminary:
The Torah's story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin's theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah's entire religious worldview and value system. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated.
Orthodox Judaism:
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations references an article which states, "Belief in science and belief in the Creator are absolutely consistent...In Genesis, the Torah describes a gradual process of creation from simple to more complex organisms: first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This, of course, is the same evolutionary process proposed by science." The article states that the "days" of Genesis represent six epochs or stages of creation, and is very clear that the process of creation was guided by God.
The groups which I have seen come out and take a position directly contrary to evolution are:
The Assemblies of God (the denomination in which my father was a pastor, and which I still attend).
The Jehovahs Witnesses
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Seventh Day Adventist
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Upvote
0
