Original Sin and Evolution

[Idea]

I am so tired of people trying to use science to prove that the “miracles” described in the Bible are really not a “miracle” at all, but only a well timed natural phenomenon. In the end they will convince themselves that it was the laws of nature, and not God, that has parted the red sea and turn the moon to blood (Rev 6:12) That the bible was written by ignorant philosophers trying to explain what science had not yet taught them and thus the Bible becomes akin to Greek and Roman mythology. No No No

Christians, rather than striving to prove that the miracles cited in the scriptures are scientifically plausible, we should strive to prove that what we see around us can be explained through no other means than intelligent design. The fine tuning of gravity so that the universe is filled with planets and stars rather than a single black hole or dust unable to cling together. That the atomic force has been similarly tuned that we have the entire spectrum of the table of elements. The fine tuning of life itself with the delicate balance of ecosystems – it is in the things science cannot explain that God is revealed.

 

[VictimofChanges]

it is in the things science cannot explain that God is revealed.

That's always been the case! Unfortunately for you, those things are constantly getting slimmer. It's only a matter of time before more things slip into the realms of metaphor and allegory in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I was at a faith discussion meeting a while ago, and that was the first time I'd encountered Christians in real life trying to side-step the idea that we did not evolve from apes. The fact that we have conclusive fossil evidence for a dozen or more strains of early hominid seemed of no consequence whatsoever (one fellow even depressingly brought up the idea of hoaxes!), which made me wonder how much evidence these people actually need before coming to their blinkered conclusions. How much longer are they going to worship gaps in evidence rather than evidence itself, and shelter in the comforting shade of ignorance which science is at least trying to roll back?

The quote above is a prime example of resorting to a divine creator because things seem incomprehensibly complex and conveniently perfect for planets, gravity, life and so on to harmoniously exist. Two points:

(A) just because something appears amazingly engineered beyond our understanding, does not mean we should default to dreaming up a Creator for it.

(B) we are only HERE to marvel at the perfect conditions suitable for life, BECAUSE of those perfect conditions! If the universe (or this universe at least, if you want to venture in that direction) was not "fine-tuned" to be more than a black hole, we wouldn't BE here to speculate about our origins in the first place!

 

[Idea]

That's always been the case! Unfortunately for you, those things are constantly getting slimmer. It's only a matter of time before more things slip into the realms of metaphor and allegory in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Getting slimmer? Quite the contrary - for the more we learn, the more we know we don't know. Learn about the big bang - then learn we can never know what caused it or what kind of universe possiblly existed before it.

We watch the universe become increasingly larger and larger as we become able to peer into the night sky farther and farther. The microscopic world becomes similarly mysterious – the definition of what an “elementary particle” is has changed considerably and it seems will continue to change. Infinity lies in both directions of magnification.

An accelerating universe ??!!??
As part of the High-Z team, I recognize that the accelerating universe was not discovered by us alone. But Saul's version of events does not match the available facts. If I learned one thing from writing The Extravagant Universe, it is that memory plays tricks. You have to go back to the documents if you want to know what happened 9 years ago. Since this claim of an announcement in January 1998 is confusing, even to experts...

You will never be able to prove that there is no God – in order to prove His absence you would have to observe every point of the universe throughout all time – ie – He is not here, not here, not here – in other words, you have to become a God to prove there is no God. It is impossible for the mind of any human being to prove to itself 'non-existance' and so there will always be either uncertainty, or the proof of Diety. Take your pick, you can either go through life uncertain and ignorant, or you can Believe.

I was at a faith discussion meeting a while ago, and that was the first time I'd encountered Christians in real life trying to side-step the idea that we did not evolve from apes. The fact that we have conclusive fossil evidence for a dozen or more strains of early hominid seemed of no consequence whatsoever (one fellow even depressingly brought up the idea of hoaxes!), which made me wonder how much evidence these people actually need before coming to their blinkered conclusions. How much longer are they going to worship gaps in evidence rather than evidence itself, and shelter in the comforting shade of ignorance which science is at least trying to roll back?

The quote above is a prime example of resorting to a divine creator because things seem incomprehensibly complex and conveniently perfect for planets, gravity, life and so on to harmoniously exist.

I do not "resort to a creator" out of ignorance, but out of knowledge, for I have felt His presence. You would be proud to know that I used the scientific method, theorize, test, observe – to find Him. I have gained for myself conclusive evidence that He does in fact exist for He has actually spoken to me.

As for the origin of man, I do not believe that God created everything, I believe in a self-existent universe in which God has "organized", "formed", the immortal intelligences... rather than created out of nothingness - and so do not fall within the mainstream of Christianity... althogh I am not alone in this belief - there are now 13 million others who have similar beliefs with more being converted every minute

“I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God. Since then I have become acquainted with what to me is a far more important and wonderful kind of evolution. It is the evolution of men and women as the sons and daughters of God, and of our marvelous potential for growth as children of our Creator.”
—President Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct. 1984, 5.

 

[VictimofChanges]

Take your pick, you can either go through life uncertain and ignorant, or you can Believe.

What's the difference?

I do not "resort to a creator" out of ignorance, but out of knowledge, for I have felt His presence. You would be proud to know that I used the scientific method, theorize, test, observe – to find Him. I have gained for myself conclusive evidence that He does in fact exist for He has actually spoken to me.

If you wouldn't mind, could you explain this experience? I'm quite interested.

 

[Idea]

What's the difference?



If you wouldn't mind, could you explain this experience? I'm quite interested.

I should have said "Know" not "Believe"

I have only had one experience where I have heard actual words, however I have had many experiences where I have felt His presence, the first one I wrote about on this thread. This thread talks about the difference between "know" and "Believe".

I had just gotten out of the shower, I was mulling over in my mind if I should go on to graduate school or not – having a little conversation with myself in my head over the pro’s and con’s of it. I asked myself “If I go will I even make it?” A voice replied “You’ll make it”. The words were so clear – I grabbed a towel frightened out of my wits looking around to find where the voice came from. I think you have to be in a peacful relaxed open state (like Samuel was) and that state of being was gone from me the moment I heard the words. It appears there are no thoughts that are private J A human voice - friendly, but a little strange to hear as He was replying to thoughts in my head. The voice was in the room but also inside of me - the strange feeling that I was not hearing the words with my ears, but that they were able to gain straight access to my thoughts without any middle-man. Hard to describe. Anyways, I did go on and was able to get my degree. Those 3 words actually got me through a lot.

a hair of his head shall not fall to the ground unnoticed...
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section84:116)


A human voice
4 That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.
5 And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down.
6 And the LORD called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.
7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.
8 And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the LORD had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, LORD; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place...
(Old Testament | 1 Samuel3:4 - 9)

 

[champuru]

Why does one need to explain "sin" if one possesses the mental rationality to comprehend evolution?

Because this is asking Christian evolutionists how do they reconcile original sin and evolution

Why does the fact that every human is capable of doing 'bad' things as well as good demand any inately supernatural explanation?

that is actually my answer for the question. Humans are capable of good and bad things

 

[Hnefi]

You need to read scientific journals, and no, it is not a "christian" scientist phenomena.
John

I think you need to do your research a little better. Can you provide a single published paper from a scientific journal that opposes the theory of evolution?

In the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial excerpt, the following quote can be found (source here):

Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees. (1:94-100 (Miller)). As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.”

Other sources that prove you wrong can be found here, here, and here. This source is particularily damaging to your viewpoint as it is a clear statement made by the largest scientific organization in the world.

I hope you see your error and refrain from making such unsupported statements in the future - these sources were easy to find, after all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think that science and religion can be reconciled. Paul makes this plain in Romans 1. His description of man's descent from truth into error could have happened in pre-flood times, at the time he was writing, or today. He is focusing on the consequence of what man believes. We should be careful what we throw out with the bathwater.


Romans 1 (a few verses that make the point)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creation more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;



Anytime religion is mixed with science religion loses. Science, for all it's value, is still an earthly/worldly pursuit that has virtually nothing to do with spiritual development, and is often an impediment to it.

owg

 

[cleminson]

As I am trying to show in my paper called The Genesis Enigma. I believe that sin is something that Christians commit against God. That Christ died to give us new life, that life that Adam lost when he sinned against God. Original sin was the cause that led to Adam's immediate death and demotion to the knowledge of good and evil and a place on our physical world. Sin is easy to deal with, but only after we have become new creatures in Christ. We simply ask him for forgivness if we sin. Once again original sin led to DEATH and Jesus died to give us back that life. We dwell too much on sin and not enough on LIFE.

 

[Hagnismos]

It requires envisioning a completely different story about the beginning or a completely different interpretation about Genesis 1-11 than is commonly taught by evangelicals.

Here are a few ways I have heard it explained.

1) Satan's rebellion happened from the moment he perceived God's intention to create man in a place more special than one he was given (1 Pet 1:12 Peter says salvation is a matter the angels long to look into.) This rebellion of Satan happened almost at the dawn of Creation when the intention to create man in a special place of fellowship was made known. Because Satan had a special place in relationship to the created world (the precious stones were his covering Ezekiel 38) he was able through warfare to distort the intentions of the Creator (though God in His sovereignty and wisdom allowed it.) Then God made a covenant with a man Adam and gave him a wife and special place protected by God. When the devil succesfully tempted Adam and Eve their descendants were plunged into darkness, this darkness required the death of Christ (God as Man.) Whether this all makes sense to us is moot. God knows the end from the beginning and all of His ways are perfect. That in and of itself should settle for us that though we may not understand the world we see, the witness of God's Spirit in our hearts is sufficient to know that we are the children of God, who believe in Jesus.

2) Genesis is not intended to tell us specifics about how things were Created as much as to confirm that they were.

In the first original sin is explained though in way that does not at all fit with most Christian thought on the matter. In the second original sin is left shrouded in mystery, since without a specific act to point to how could it be inherited? And yet Paul concludes that through one man's sin death came to all, since all sin. (Romans 5)

I clever preacher once pointe out to me that the Bible gets you whether you believe in original sin or not because you can always show that we have all fallen short of God's best and that falling short in one area is the same as falling short in all areas (cursed is eveyone who fails to keep the whole law.)

As pertains to salvation, with or without a doctrine of original sin, we all still stand in need of being saved.

It is so hard for our ambitious minds to understand how awesome is the mind of God (Isaiah 55)

 

[calvinroyal]

I reject the notions of both evolution and original sin.

Holyrokker got here ex-nihilo and fell on his own accord.

 

[Gus2009]

Hey Victim, is there oxygen in space?

Although it wasnt adressed to me ill answer the question. Yes, there is oxygen in space. Then again, that depends on how youre defining space. So from what i think you mean ill say yes.

 

[no1nose]

How do we reconcile evolution and Original Sin? Or perhaps, if one accepts evolution as the underlying creative and formative process, how do we explain sin?

Hi
Here is my take on the issue.

For life as we know it there are three essential needs – air, water and food. Without air we die in minutes. At most we can live only a few days without water and without food a few weeks. Take the need to breathe. Both plants and animals need air. But instead of competing with each other for air to breathe, plants and animals complement and benefit one another. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. In using air, each one produces what the other needs. The relationship between plants and animals is symbiotic – each one complements the other in a relationship that benefits both.

Living things need water. But unlike air, water has only one ingredient and both plants and animals need water itself. Yet the use for this vital need is still a model of cooperation. Plants and animals do not compete against each other for water. Plants take water from under the ground where it is not usually available for use by animals. Animals take water from the surface of lakes and streams that are not generally sources for plants. Also, the use of water by plants benefits animals by influencing the climate to produce rain. And the use of water by animals benefits plants by adding nutrients to the soil.

The third need for life is food. Here it would seem natural for the cooperation seen in air and water to continue. Nothing has to die for us to breathe and nothing must die for us to drink water. But here the cooperation in the natural world breaks down. Food is different. While we can find remnants of cooperation between living things for the most part something must die for something else to eat. Most people accept as normal, after all we live in a dog eat dog world. But why is food different from air and water; why is it that something must die for there to be food for another?

It appears that there has been a breakdown in the natural order of the universe, both on earth and in the skies above. On one hand the universe was created with the precise exactness that is necessary to support life. But on the other hand the amount of life in the universe that wasted must cause us to question. Would a man build a fine stadium that could seat fifty thousand people and then allow only one seat in the stadium to be used?

When we look to the stars we see the vastness of empty space. The universe expands into nothingness with a highly uncertain future. When we look on earth we see the exact opposite. On earth there is a critical shortage of space for life. If life was meant to be as well designed as the physical universe then something catastrophic has gone wrong.

One can marvel at the miracle of life that is contained in just one seed. Could man build anything as wondrous as a seed? Truly this is precisely engineered work of God. Something made by God with such care surely was not meant to go to waste.

In the book of Genesis we are told the order in which God created the universe. His work was good and perfect. Then on the sixth day God opened door to mankind make choices that would determine the future of all life. We often hear of the Ten Commandants but this is that very first commandment given to mankind and therefore the most important.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Genesis 1:28-29

Here we see a double emphasis on growth. These commandments were given in the context of the creation of the universe. They were interwoven into the fabric of creation itself. Both these commandments are linked to procreation and the increase of living things. Foremost in God’s mind at the creation was the importance of and the increase of mankind and as well a other life.

These commands assume there would be enough room for all of mankind to fit upon the face of the earth. In a world like that of the Transfiguration this would be possible. There would be room for everyone who could ever possibility be born. But in our world there is no room for unbounded life to grow. Instead most of the life that is possible never comes into being. The amount of life that is wasted is a very large number, number large enough to continually fill the entire universe.

“Everyone” is another impossibly large number, enough to fill the earth many times over. But the people living a world that was like that of the Transfiguration would have found would have found our earth very spacious. Perhaps one’s space in the Garden would be the size of our world. This is the space that Adam and Eve had it may have been the standard meant for all couples. Nor would living in your own “world” have isolated people. In paradise contact and communion with others and God was close at hand.

And this all depended on obeying God’s commands:

And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Genesis 1:19

If given this command there are two very important questions that one would naturally ask. First, how would one know whether a fruit has a seed in it or not? There are kinds of fruit that do not have seeds and one can not tell this simply by looking at them. Secondly, what would happen if a seedless fruit was eaten? Both of these questions are answered later by God in the Garden of Eden:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Genesis 2:16-17

In the Garden mankind and the animals ate fruit and leaves. Death was not present in the Garden and one animal did not eat another. But at some point this began to happen. Today most people may think that it is necessary for animals to eat each other to live. But this is not true. For at some point the in the food chain the animal that is eaten is one that eats plants. Plants provide the basis for all food that is eaten. Without plants as food the animal kingdom would soon starve. The plant kingdom feeds the animal kingdom and light from the sun feed the plant kingdom.

It is light that is the primary source of all food. So awesome is this process that brings us food that we cannot have direct knowledge of it. Just as we are unable to look upon God directly:

The Lord said . . . "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. " Exodus 33:20

Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.

Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.
God gave plants to all the animals as their food
"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. Genesis 1:30

Plants produce enough food to feed the animal kingdom many time over. But not all animals eat plants. Some animals eat plants while some animals eat other animals. While it is possible for all animals to eat food from plants they no longer do so.
In Genesis we are told that in the Garden all animals ate fruit and leaves, that is, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom. This then would put the provision of food in harmony with the overall design for life. According to Genesis, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom and in return Adam “tended the garden”.

If we look again at Genesis 1:29-30 we must conclude that the exact diet that was given here consisted only of fruit and leaves. In Genesis 3:18 we find this fact reinforced, as when leaving the Garden God tells Adam and Eve that they will now eat the plants themselves:
“and you shall eat the plants of the field” Genesis 3:18
This verse implies that before this, whole plants were not eaten. The point here to remember is that in the Garden death did not exist. If animals had eaten the plants themselves, then death would have been present even if it were of something that was unconscious.
The restriction to only fruit and leaves meant that death was not present in the Garden. For example if one eats a leaf from a plant the plant need not die. Nor is the leaf itself a living entity but can be taken without the loss of life of the plant. The same is true if one eats fruit from a tree. The seed of the fruit is a living entity and can die but it is not meant to be eaten. Later in Genesis, when Adam and Eve had left the Garden of Eden, we find that plants themselves were not eaten; rather mankind was given meat as food.
“The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon the fish of the sea, they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” Genesis 9:2-3

Before us now the stage is set in the Garden of Eden. There God give Adam and Eve fruit with seed in it to eat;
“I give you every seed-bearing plant” and “every tree that has fruit with seed in it.” Genesis 1-29-30
But at the same time there was one fruit that they were forbidden to eat:
“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17
Here we have two cases. In the first case God gives Adam and Eve every fruit with seed. In the second case God gives Adam and Eve every fruit except the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. For both of these cases to be true then the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil could not have had a seed. In the context of the creation of that time there would be two consequences of this. First, without seed there would be no need for additional space for new plants. From Genesis 1:28-29 it would appear that in the beginning life and its need for space were linked together into one organic whole. The physical world expanded and made room for new life as it appeared. Eating fruit without a seed may have prematurely sent the signal that life had reached it. Life would be trapped in a microscopic portion of the universe the grand design for creation shattered.

 

[zon3d]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12)

So that verse states that death came about through sin, but if God used evolution to make the world that would contradict that Scripture as there would be death before the fall. But there cannot have been death before the fall of man as then that would make God a liar and mean that through the one Man, Jesus Christ, we cannot be justified (Romans 5:18,19).

Thus God did not use evolution.

 

[Lemmiwinks]

Our brains share structures that are seen in the brains of reptiles, mammals, apes, etc.

Reptiles don't have much of a brain at all, mostly just a brain stem.
Mammals have the brain stem, but they also have other structires that reptiles lack.

Apes have the structures that reptiles and mammals have, but they also have structures that other mammals and reptiles lack.

Man has everything that the reptiles, mammals, and apes have, PLUS even more structures that are unique to man.

So we can see that more advanced animals have more advanced brains, yet we still have the primitive structures as well. When we sin, we are are being controled by those primitive structures.

Like the reptile portion of the brain controls aggression. Sometimes we aren't controlled by the higher structures of the brain. Sometimes we are controled by the more primitive structures, like if someone reacts violently and kills someone, the more primitive portions of the brain have taken over.

 

[depthdeception]

The doctrine of Original Sin and evolution are by far most likely the hardest ideas to reconcile in Christian theology. Evolutionary theory refutes the notion that Original Sin brought discord, death and chaos into an initially perfect creation of harmony and equilibrium.

...

How do we reconcile evolution and Original Sin? Or perhaps, if one accepts evolution as the underlying creative and formative process, how do we explain sin?

There is nothing to reconcile as the processes which you characterize as "discord" and "chaos" are simply the way the universe is. Death is a necessary part of biology--without it, we would not be able to live, much less grow and develop as individuals and as a species.

Sin factors into the equation in that humans have rebelled against God, choosing hatred and violence to peace, mercy, and knowledge of God. In this state of dissolution, the "way the universe is" takes on an extremely negative tone because our sinfulness makes our mortality extremely poignant. In order to further justify ourselves, we pass off the reality of our sinfulness onto completely conjectural notions of a meta strain of sin plaguing everything in the universe. In other words, we make sin into a distant, looming answer to all of our existential pangs in order to stave off its overwhelming immanence.

But the fact that we are not willing to come to grips with the incredibly personal responsibility for our own hatred and violence is absolutely no reason to cast a shadow on creation. What God created was "good", and it still is--it is humans who are broken and corrupted.

 

[JuliusRaphael]

Sorry for double post.

 

[JuliusRaphael]

Why does one need to explain "sin" if one possesses the mental rationality to comprehend evolution?

Why does the fact that every human is capable of doing 'bad' things as well as good demand any inately supernatural explanation?

Do you really think you can explain rationallity by only naturalism and evolution?

For me it's not so much the doing of bad or good which is explained by God, it's rather the definition of what is good and what is bad.