Not another evolution argument

[wotupjoe]

Hi all

I've created this thread to discuss evolution and why some christians believe in it. Please... I really don't want this to become another argument thread.
This thread is addressed mainly to christian evolutionists.

Let's start off with an easy one:

When, in your christian walk, did you accept evolution and why?

We can get into details at a later stage but, at the moment, I'm really just interested in why a christian would believe in evolution.

Thanks and happy typing!

P.S. I don't always have access to the internet so please forgive me if I take a while to respond.

 

[Joykins]

I've pretty much always figured that theistic evolution was a possibility as a mechanism of God's creation, although I didn't actually look into the science until I was in my late 20s.

 

[gluadys]

Hi all

I've created this thread to discuss evolution and why some christians believe in it. Please... I really don't want this to become another argument thread.
This thread is addressed mainly to christian evolutionists.

Let's start off with an easy one:

When, in your christian walk, did you accept evolution and why?

We can get into details at a later stage but, at the moment, I'm really just interested in why a christian would believe in evolution.

Thanks and happy typing!

P.S. I don't always have access to the internet so please forgive me if I take a while to respond.

In my first semester at university back in 1961.

My high school text did not contain a single word about evolution. My church did not teach a single thing about evolution either pro or con. The Bible Club at school and the Youth for Christ assemblies I attended never discussed evolution. The six TV channels we could get did not include Discovery Channel. Cable TV had not been invented yet. And of course there was no access to the internet yet.

I would not even have been curious about evolution except for one thing. An uncle of mine had put me on a mailing list for biblical tracts and I received a package of them about once a month. Some of these tracts discussed evolution and gave me a very negative picture of evolution. I had no reason to doubt that image of evolution for most of my high-school years, simply because it was the only one I was getting.

In my last year of high-school, I discovered that one of the teachers who I most respected, and whom I knew to be a Christian, accepted that the earth was very old--just as it is described in geology. I never got an opportunity to discuss it with him in detail, but it piqued my curiosity. I asked the same question you pose. Why would a Christian believe in an old earth (and presumably evolution). And that prompted curiosity about another matter. If evolution was as dumb a notion as the tracts had led me to believe, why would smart people with PhDs in science believe it?

I concluded the tracts were not telling me the whole story and I needed to check out what the whole story was. My opportunity came in that first semester at university. Although I was majoring in language, like all frosh, I was required to take one course in science. I opted for biology, not only because I felt it had to be more interesting than studying rocks, but also because we might learn about evolution. As it turned out, in class we skipped the chapter on evolution. But I did get to read what the text book said.

And the text book laid out the theory of evolution plain and simple and showed me what evidence led scientists to believe it. And my first and immediate reaction was "Wow! so that's how God did it! What a beautiful way to create! Praise you, Lord!"

This is one reason it bugs me when people want science texts to talk about God. It is so unnecessary. The text I read that semester didn't talk about God. But I couldn't help but see God's hand in evolution as soon as I understood what it was.

I should also say that it was not one particular piece of evidence that convinced me. It was more a Gestalt thing where I grasped the whole at once. I don't think anyone will ever be convinced of evolution by looking at bits and pieces at a time. One needs the overall view to see how beautifully it all fits together.

So you might say what won me over was not so much the scientific details as the aesthetics of evolution. I could not see anything so elegantly beautiful as anything other than a work of God. I suppose that is what you get when you make a language student take science.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all you know on earth and all you need to know.

John Keats Ode on a Grecian Urn

Poems are made by fools like me,
but only God can make a tree.

Joyce Kilmer, Trees

I don't expect Kilmer was thinking of phylogenic trees, but I think it is an appropriate application.

After that initial exposure, I never thought much about evolution again until quite recently. Most of the actual science I have learned in the last 4-5 years, much of it on this forum.

 

[ebia]

Grew up with both.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Me too. Creationists were vanishingly rare, and still are, in the Church of England in the 1980s.

 

[ebia]

Me too. Creationists were vanishingly rare, and still are, in the Church of England in the 1980s.

Did you mean to imply that the CofE is still in the 1980s?

 

[depthdeception]

Hi all

I've created this thread to discuss evolution and why some christians believe in it. Please... I really don't want this to become another argument thread.
This thread is addressed mainly to christian evolutionists.

Let's start off with an easy one:

When, in your christian walk, did you accept evolution and why?

We can get into details at a later stage but, at the moment, I'm really just interested in why a christian would believe in evolution.

Thanks and happy typing!

P.S. I don't always have access to the internet so please forgive me if I take a while to respond.

My reasoning, interestingly enough, is not so much concerned with evidence (although my understanding is informed by evidence). Rather, my reasons for believing in "evolution" and big bang cosmology is primarily theological and (like glaudys) aesthetic. I believe that God is actively involved in creation. "6-day creationism" seems, IMO, to create a picture of a universe in which God is no longer involved in creation. "Evolution" and big bang cosmology, on the other hand, reveal a picture of a God who participates actively in every movement of creation--a creation that is still unfolding and being formed as history unfolds.

 

[wotupjoe]

Interesting.

Someone in another thread said that, because the universe was expanding, that proved the Big Bang. Personally, I have another opinion:
The bible says that God stretches out the heavens (notice it's present tense) but I've got a way cooler explanation... If we know that God spoke the universe into being, and we know that sound is waves that constantly move, isn't it a cool thought to think that those words that first created the world are still travelling out in space and creating as they go along?!
Ok, ok... so it's not the most theologically correct idea but I still think it's pretty cool.

I guess these are some of the major questions I have:

1. God said that we were created in His image, yet you believe that we started as a single cell... how do you justify this?
2. In the book of Daniel, Daniel reads the old scriptures and prophecies and sees that God has already fortold that the nation of Israel would be held captive for a certain amount of years and then freed. What's most striking about this passage is the fact that: when God says in the prophecies, "It will be so for x amount of days" Daniel takes it as literally meaning x amount of days.
Daniel interprets the scriptures as being literal... why don't we?

Thanks for your replies.

 

[Dracil]

The only time I was a Creationist was up until elementary school, but even then, it wasn't really a factor in my life.

Taking science classes and just *looking* at the world around you was pretty much enough to show that creationism is not true.

 

[depthdeception]

I guess these are some of the major questions I have:

1. God said that we were created in His image, yet you believe that we started as a single cell... how do you justify this?

Unless one wishes to locate the "image of God" merely in the organizational complexity of the human person, there is no problem. I would suggest that the "imago Dei" is a relational reality, and not one that is limited to our physical structure.

2. In the book of Daniel, Daniel reads the old scriptures and prophecies and sees that God has already fortold that the nation of Israel would be held captive for a certain amount of years and then freed. What's most striking about this passage is the fact that: when God says in the prophecies, "It will be so for x amount of days" Daniel takes it as literally meaning x amount of days.
Daniel interprets the scriptures as being literal... why don't we?

The answer is going to lie in the original Hebrew rendering of the words in the given passages. But more importantly, I would suggest that you look at some of the threads concerning "literal" interpretations of Scripture. A literal interpretation is not always the same as "a surface interpretation"--it has more to do with the author's intention than with what the reader thinks it says at first glance.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Did you mean to imply that the CofE is still in the 1980s?

It has to get there first

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Interesting.

Someone in another thread said that, because the universe was expanding, that proved the Big Bang.

No. It is evidence for it. So is the CBR. And so on. Nothing ever proves anything in science; it just refines models. The BB is our current model and is being refined. We're pretty sure that reality is pretty close to our BB model.

Personally, I have another opinion:
The bible says that God stretches out the heavens (notice it's present tense) but I've got a way cooler explanation... If we know that God spoke the universe into being, and we know that sound is waves that constantly move, isn't it a cool thought to think that those words that first created the world are still travelling out in space and creating as they go along?!
Ok, ok... so it's not the most theologically correct idea but I still think it's pretty cool.

Unfortunately it's not a scientifically correct idea because despite the explosions you hear on Star Trek, sound can't actually travel through a vacuum. Once the sound waves of the words of God (do you really take it as literal, sound wave, spoken words ?) got to a place where the early universe was too rarified to transmit sound, creation would cease.

I guess these are some of the major questions I have:

1. God said that we were created in His image, yet you believe that we started as a single cell... how do you justify this?

Everyone starts as a single cell - a fertilised ovum. Surely as this ovum is actually the same individual as the adult, unlike the universal common ancestor (UCA), shouldn't your objection be stronger against embryology than evolution?

2. In the book of Daniel, Daniel reads the old scriptures and prophecies and sees that God has already fortold that the nation of Israel would be held captive for a certain amount of years and then freed. What's most striking about this passage is the fact that: when God says in the prophecies, "It will be so for x amount of days" Daniel takes it as literally meaning x amount of days.
Daniel interprets the scriptures as being literal... why don't we?

Thanks for your replies.

I don't recall that Daniel does any interpreting. He just writes down the prophecy and closes the book, IIRC.

 

[Joykins]

1. God said that we were created in His image, yet you believe that we started as a single cell... how do you justify this?

My understanding of what it means to be created in the image of God has nothing to do with our physical structure (although this also became the structure of the Incarnation) but everything to so with our souls. We are in the image of God because we can relate to each other and God in meaningful ways, and we also have the ability and knowledge to discern right from wrong. This is something that AFAIK animals don't have (and if they do that, they probably have their own gospel, not ours).

 

[gluadys]

I guess these are some of the major questions I have:

1. God said that we were created in His image, yet you believe that we started as a single cell... how do you justify this?

This has already been well answered by others, but for another interesting POV check out a book called The Phenomenon of Man written by a Jesuit priest and professional paleontologist named Teilhard de Chardin.

2. In the book of Daniel, Daniel reads the old scriptures and prophecies and sees that God has already fortold that the nation of Israel would be held captive for a certain amount of years and then freed. What's most striking about this passage is the fact that: when God says in the prophecies, "It will be so for x amount of days" Daniel takes it as literally meaning x amount of days.
Daniel interprets the scriptures as being literal... why don't we?

Thanks for your replies.

Actually Daniel was long deceased when the book was written in the 2nd century BCE. Just because there is a name on a book of the bible, doesn't mean that person wrote it. Esther didn't write Esther either, and Job didn't write Job and Ruth didn't write Ruth.

 

[JVD]

Actually Daniel was long deceased when the book was written in the 2nd century BCE. Just because there is a name on a book of the bible, doesn't mean that person wrote it. Esther didn't write Esther either, and Job didn't write Job and Ruth didn't write Ruth.

An argument for another thread...hopefully this one doesn't change this thread.


As far as when I began to believe in evolution. I haven't really reached that point yet, but I am moving toward it. I am not a scientist, just a 50 year old man, (and a 45 yo christian), interested in these questions, And the father of an 18 YO daughter going off to college to study physics and astronomy.

I have been doing a lot of reading on the topic and can now accept that evolution, at least to a certain point, makes sense. Evolution on a small scale obviously happens, we can watch it happen.

My thinking on this topic has changed gradually over the last 20 years beginning with a christian friend that was a petroleum geologist. I am from a VERY strong YEC background and have some theological training, but no scientific training.

 

[wotupjoe]

Sure, I can see how evolution can make sense... but I can so much more easily see how pure creationism can make sense. I guess I'm just a firm believer that: if God says something, it must be true. That's why when He says that He created the world in 6 days, I believe Him.
My personal opinion is that we shouldn't try and shape Christian beliefs to suit the worlds beliefs. That doesn't make any sense to me. It's like when the world says that sex outside of marriage is fine. The bible says it's not but you find Christians saying to themselves, "Well the world says it's fine, maybe it is... maybe God was only telling this to the people that lived in the biblical time period... maybe I should 'move with the times'..."

I personally see no difference.

Another argument that I would have would be that, for evolution to take place there has to be death... you know, the whole circle of life vibe. Well, the bible says that "through Adam came death". If death only came through Adam, how did things die before Adam?

 

[depthdeception]

Another argument that I would have would be that, for evolution to take place there has to be death... you know, the whole circle of life vibe. Well, the bible says that "through Adam came death". If death only came through Adam, how did things die before Adam?

I do not see what the difficulty would be. In order for Adam to be alive, there had to be death, for to live and move and breathe means that millions upon millions of cells are growing, dividing, and dying constantly. Adam couldn't be human without death. Therefore, perhaps the "death" to which this verse refers is something different than the cessation of physical processes.

 

[Critias]

I do not see what the difficulty would be. In order for Adam to be alive, there had to be death, for to live and move and breathe means that millions upon millions of cells are growing, dividing, and dying constantly. Adam couldn't be human without death. Therefore, perhaps the "death" to which this verse refers is something different than the cessation of physical processes.

And is this how the Bible describes life and death, on a cellular level?

You are showing a classic example of blurring the lines between modern and ancient view points, equating the two. The Bible doesn't speak of cellular death as death of man. And I am sure you are aware of this, using it as a scapegoat.

 

[depthdeception]

And is this how the Bible describes life and death, on a cellular level?

You are showing a classic example of blurring the lines between modern and ancient view points, equating the two. The Bible doesn't speak of cellular death as death of man. And I am sure you are aware of this, using it as a scapegoat.

No, it does not describe death on a cellular level. But the microscopic cannot be divorced from the macroscopic. This is why one must be careful in how one creates theological categories on the basis of pre-modern perspectives of life and death.

 

[Critias]

No, it does not describe death on a cellular level. But the microscopic cannot be divorced from the macroscopic. This is why one must be careful in how one creates theological categories on the basis of pre-modern perspectives of life and death.

It seems to me that many TEs, maybe not you, use cellular death as the reason why death of the complete body was before sin.

The Bible speaks of the death of the body as a whole, not cellular death that is microscopic and is a scientific view point, not a Biblical one.

In the Bible, it speaks of life as chay nephesh. This applies to all living creatures in the water, in the air, on the land and man.

I have detailed my view point on this before in this forum.