Theistic evolution and Christ's sacrifice

[angrylittlefisherman]

I recently was near, and not part of due to the fact that it degraded into people talking over eachother, a conversation wherein 1 person suggested that the evolution theory is not diametraclly opposed to christianity, the other said he was open to the idea if someone could explain how Christ as GOd and Man and his death and resurection relate and are necessary. We are operating on the premises that Christs sacrifice was necessary for our salvation and that he is in fact God. I wanted to be a part of the conversation but it turned sour. I am still interested in hearing what people who espouse evolution as an origin have to say about this.

 

[crawfish]

Well...evolution makes very little difference to this question. We are God's special creation, we are fallen and were separated from God, Christ came as a sacrifice for our sins and restored our spiritual connection to God, His resurrection was a triumph over spiritual death.

The biggest difference is that literal creationists feel that the spiritual separation is due quite literally to a man and a woman eating the fruit of a tree that they had been told not to. TE's tend to believe that the story is representative of the choice that was made by all mankind of knowledge over innocence.



btw, if you were a friendly little fishermen, maybe these conversations would go better. (j/k)

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

So the Fall is not an act of sin but a spiritual de-evolution?

I was a happy fisherman once, but I havent been able to catch any crayfish lately

 

[gluadys]

So the Fall is not an act of sin but a spiritual de-evolution?

I was a happy fisherman once, but I havent been able to catch any crayfish lately

Not really. Evolution (at least when speaking of "the theory of evolution") is a physical matter of physical changes in genomes which are physically inherited from one's parents/ancestors.

Sin is a spiritual state of being separated from God. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with that. It is inapplicable unless you are using the term in a completely different frame of reference that has nothing to do with DNA or genes or anything impacted by them.

I have never been able to understand why some Christians think evolution (the biological kind) does away with sin and the need for salvation.

 

[Luddite]

Evolution, as the scientific theory, has nothing to say about it. But a philosophy of evolution-ism, might have something to say about it. You could understand, like the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Christian evolutionist who saw philosophy in the light of evolution, Christ incarnate as the "evolver" of humanity toward the Divine.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

So I guess I should re ask my question. My apologies if you have answered this over and over.
How does the spiritual world, soul sin angels God, miracles and so forth play in? Where did the soul come from? How does evolution allow it to exist?

 

[gluadys]

So I guess I should re ask my question. My apologies if you have answered this over and over.
How does the spiritual world, soul sin angels God, miracles and so forth play in? Where did the soul come from? How does evolution allow it to exist?

Evolution is not a world-view. It is not a philosophy. It has no theological outlook. It is a simple little theory about how species change over time.

It has no function of "allowing" (or disallowing) anything whatsoever as far as spiritual things are concerned. One might just as well ask how Archimedes principle "allows" the spiritual world soul sin angels God miracles and so forth to exist.

Let science be science. Let evolution play its role in science.
Stop treating it as if it is a grand overview of the whole of reality--including spiritual reality--and let it be just the biological theory which is all it has ever claimed to be.

Then most of the theological problems with evolution just disappear.

Indeed most of the people who allegedly have problems with evolution don't really have problems with the theory of evolution, but with other concepts which they associate with evolution but don't actually have anything to do with it at all.

Science (and therefore the science of evolution) has nothing to say --either positive or negative-- about anything in your list. It cannot allow or disallow any of it.


PS. I hope this doesn't sound angry. I am trying to drive home an important point, not attack you personally in any way. You are asking a question many people ask but I need to say as strongly as possible that it is a false question. It comes from a strawman construction of what evolution is. And the best antidote is to find out what evolution really is. It is not the bogeyman some people make it out to be, because it really does not address the issues that are important to you.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Evolution is not a world-view. It is not a philosophy. It has no theological outlook. It is a simple little theory about how species change over time.

It is far more. When applied to biology, that is all it is. But it can be applied to many other things as well. The issue of selection (natural or not) with genetic change has been used countless times in genetic algorithms.

I am not trying to say that evolution should be a philosophy, just that it applies to a lot more than just biology.

 

[gluadys]

It is far more. When applied to biology, that is all it is. But it can be applied to many other things as well. The issue of selection (natural or not) with genetic change has been used countless times in genetic algorithms.

I am not trying to say that evolution should be a philosophy, just that it applies to a lot more than just biology.

The term "evolution" can apply to many things. In science, for example, it is used of stellar evolution (which describes the stages of a star from formation to extinction). Culturally it can refer to the evolution of rock (or heavy metal or hip hop) music to refer to its development over time. Historically it can refer to the evolution of democracy or capitalism or human rights, etc. And, as you point out, the principles of evolution learned from biology have been used in technology.

The term "theory of evolution" applies to the evolution of species through (mainly) natural selection and common descent. It is wholly biological.

No one considers the non-biological applications of "evolution" controversial. Only the theory of evolution in biology draws controversy. But usually for reasons unrelated to biology and therefore unrelated to the theory.

When people get anxious over whether it is possible for a Christian to accept evolution it is always the biological theory they have in mind.

So while you are technically correct, your point is also irrelevant.

 

[Luddite]

So I guess I should re ask my question. My apologies if you have answered this over and over.
How does the spiritual world, soul sin angels God, miracles and so forth play in? Where did the soul come from? How does evolution allow it to exist?

All of those things have to do with what is between humans and God.

Evolution says nothing about it, because evolution says only something about how humans are made up and came about in a biological way. Nothing else.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

All of those things have to do with what is between humans and God.

Evolution says nothing about it, because evolution says only something about how humans are made up and came about in a biological way. Nothing else.

I think this statment is what might be my biggest hang up with being able to accept it.

In an attempt to answer the point made by several people in regards to the irrelevancy of my previous statement, or rather the irrelevancy of those who find controversy with macro-evolution on a biological level. I want to try and point out the source of the controversy as I understand it. That matter is really one of a theological/philosophical matter, whether that is something recognized by the typical young earth creationist fundegelical Christian.
I have found that Darwin's theory is argued against on a purely scientific playing field, most people forget that true science is never absolute. Good science never promises or speaks in exclusively absolute terms ex. "This ball will fall every time I drop it." That would be bad science. What it seems to come down to when the "scientific" argument occurs is that most theories can be interpreted in many different fashions and appear to be reality.
What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root. Darwin's theory was developed at a moment in History when humanism and atheism were really becoming quite popular or mainstream. Nietzsche lived practically at the same time. So what concerns me more about the issue is that it was an action in a sense driven by a desire to replace God, to kill Him if you will. So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.
So I guess what I am really trying to figure out is how does a Christian reconcile a nihilistic idea to Christianity. How is meaning and person-hood brought into an idea that was and still is used to oppose these things?


Please forgive me, I am sure that I am annoying you all, but this is something that I am having a lot of trouble understanding, and I think that this topic is something one must have a handle on.

 

[metherion]

What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root. Darwin's theory was developed at a moment in History when humanism and atheism were really becoming quite popular or mainstream. Nietzsche lived practically at the same time. So what concerns me more about the issue is that it was an action in a sense driven by a desire to replace God, to kill Him if you will. So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.

I would like to point out a few things I see about your way of thinking, and perhaps apply them in ways you have not yet considered.

For starters. Merely because nihilism and atheism were becoming more commonplace does not make everything in that time period nihilistic. You say Darwinian evolution and nihilism. Let me make another comparison. Archimedes died a bit before 200 BC. In that time, paganism was rampant. But Archimedes’ principle about water displacement and flotation came from that time period. Does that mean that Archimedes’ principle should need to be reconciled with Christianity because it is tainted by paganism?

Also, specifically

What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root.
...
So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.

It was not born of a nihilist mindset. There are no real indications Darwin was a nihilist. He also didn’t lose his faith till after his daughter died/was near death. While on the HMS Beagle where he observed his famous finches, he was still a Christian. If nihilism and Christianity are directly opposed (i agree), and Darwin was a Christian when he came up with the theory, Darwin could not have been a nihilist when he came up with it, and therefore it is not born out of nihilism.

Also, on the subject, EVEN IF there were a philosophy tied around the science when it was prevented, that does not make the science less scientific. So strip the philosophy you don’t like off it if and put your own around in. The science won’t be changed. Evolution is not inherently anti God. EVEN IF it were presented wrapped up in anti-God rhetoric (it wasn’t when it was proposed, tho some like Dawkins may try to use it thus), the science is still science which you have said you have no problem with, so just take the philosophy you don’t like away. Just because someone who proposed something didn’t believe something compatible with Christianity it does not mean his ideas are wrong. As I was saying earlier, take Archimedes. Was Archimedes’ principle inherently pagan? No. If Darwin were a nihilist, is Darwinian evolution inherently nihilistic? No.

So I guess what I am really trying to figure out is how does a Christian reconcile a nihilistic idea to Christianity. How is meaning and person-hood brought into an idea that was and still is used to oppose these things?

Evolution isn’t nihilistic. “Strong” atheism would be. Just because “strong” atheists try and use evolution to make statements about God doesn’t mean evolution itself makes statements about God. Evolution is no more anti-God or nihilistic than the tommy guns used by Al Capone’s gang were anti-Prohibitionist.

I hope this helps and that you understand it as clearly as I did when I wrote it. I’m... not always the best getting across certain ideas. LOL

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

want to try and point out the source of the controversy as I understand it. That matter is really one of a theological/philosophical matter, whether that is something recognized by the typical young earth creationist fundegelical Christian.

It is good that you recognize that the heart of your concern is really a theological/philosophical matter. That means it is not really about evolution. And this is the normal case when people have concerns about evolution and Christianity. It turns out that their concern is not really about evolution, but about some theological/philosophical matter. The real question then is "Does science in general or evolution in particular really say anything about this theological/philosophical matter?" In most cases, the answer is "No".

I have found that Darwin's theory is argued against on a purely scientific playing field,

Not successfully. Most alleged scientific objections to the theory of evolution have been dealt with by real science. You can check many of them out on talkorigins Index to Creationist Claims. If there are one or two that you think are particularly forceful raise them here and I am sure someone will be able to explain them. (btw I am assuming you do not mean Darwin's original theory. That did have some real scientific problems, especially as he had a totally incorrect view of heredity.)

most people forget that true science is never absolute. Good science never promises or speaks in exclusively absolute terms ex. "This ball will fall every time I drop it." That would be bad science. What it seems to come down to when the "scientific" argument occurs is that most theories can be interpreted in many different fashions and appear to be reality.

That is not really the case. Most science cannot be interpreted in many different fashions. Don't confuse a limiting case with a different interpretation. "This ball will fall every time I drop it." is absolutely true as long as gravity is a property of physical existence and the ball and I are in a gravitational field. The only occasion on which it would not fall is if we are in the zero gravity of space. That is not a different interpretation. It depends on the same understanding of physics both on earth (or any other body of massive gravity) and in space. It recognizes that the same physical properties are being expressed in different circumstances with different results.

What concerns me is not the scientific dialogue on the subject, but the philosophical root. Darwin's theory was developed at a moment in History when humanism and atheism were really becoming quite popular or mainstream. Nietzsche lived practically at the same time. So what concerns me more about the issue is that it was an action in a sense driven by a desire to replace God, to kill Him if you will. So I see it as a theory born from a nihilist mindset, and frankly nihilism is diametrically oppose to Christianity.
So I guess what I am really trying to figure out is how does a Christian reconcile a nihilistic idea to Christianity. How is meaning and person-hood brought into an idea that was and still is used to oppose these things?

A scientific theory in and of itself is judged by how well it explains observations. It wouldn't matter at all if Darwin was a nihilist (he wasn't, not even after he lost his faith); his science could still be correct. Just because a person has some beliefs we don't agree with doesn't make them wrong about everything. For example, algebra was invented by Muslims, and geometry by pagan Greeks. Does that mean a Christian cannot properly study them?

No, of course, we cannot reconcile a nihilistic idea with Christianity. But evolution as science is not nihilistic just because Nietzsche was. The only question relevant to evolution is whether it is good science. Christians can always accept good science whatever the beliefs of those who discovered it. Science, after all, is a discipline of discovering what is true about created reality. Whether such a discovery is made by a Christian or a non-Christian is irrelevant, since in the course of things it will not gain standing in the scientific community if it does not work for all scientists whatever their beliefs.

To sum up, the point is not what mind-set gave rise to the idea of evolution, but whether evolution works as science. Does it actually make sense of what we observe? Is it actually supported by the evidence? Does it correctly predict what we will observe? And does it do so equally for every observer regardless of personal mind-set? If the answer to these questions is "yes" (and it is) then evolution is a genuine insight into what is true about created reality, no matter where it originally came from.

Please forgive me, I am sure that I am annoying you all, but this is something that I am having a lot of trouble understanding, and I think that this topic is something one must have a handle on.

Actually, it is a delight to get serious questions from a person who is really thinking about these issues.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

Thank you for your frankness, it is appreciated.
I think I may have not been too clear in my earlier post. My apologies. I do not reject any idea or theory based on ad hominem. At least I try very hard not too. What concerns me is the motivations. I do not reject geometry because it was invented by pagans, but I cannot freely accept a theory used to deny the metaphysical entirely. While Darwin himself may not have been an atheist, it was atheists (which is nihilism) who generally (though admittedly not all) use this theory to "prove" that God does not exist. Now I used the phrase Darwin's theory to try to define a theory that was rejected initially by Christianity and applauded and embraced by anti-theists. However Darwins original theory has been changed since its introduction to the world. I guess my question could be answered by Metherion, you said wrap your own philosophy around it and unwrap the atheist philosophy from it, is truth so pliable? Can any theology or preferred philosophy be wrapped around anything so easily as you make it sound?
Now no one has attempted to address the my difficulty with Luddites statement

"All of those things have to do with what is between humans and God.

Evolution says nothing about it, because evolution says only something about how humans are made up and came about in a biological way. Nothing else."

If God is the infinite summation of all existence and being, the sustain-er of life, than how can God have nothing to do with this as Luddite appears to be saying?

 

[Mallon]

While Darwin himself may not have been an atheist, it was atheists (which is nihilism) who generally (though admittedly not all) use this theory to "prove" that God does not exist.

And they're wrong in doing so. Such a position is just as silly as saying gravity, not God, holds the planets in orbit. If a Christian can accept the theory of gravity, then a Christian can accept the theory of evolution. They are derived using the same principles.

If God is the infinite summation of all existence and being, the sustain-er of life, than how can God have nothing to do with this as Luddite appears to be saying?

The quote you cited doesn't say God has nothing to do with evolution. It says evolution concerns only the natural aspects of how biodiversity came to be. Whether God was involved or not is beyond what science can tell us. For that, we turn to theology. We wouldn't use a measuring tape to hammer in a nail, and we shouldn't use science to tell us what only theology can.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you for your frankness, it is appreciated.
I think I may have not been too clear in my earlier post. My apologies. I do not reject any idea or theory based on ad hominem. At least I try very hard not too. What concerns me is the motivations. I do not reject geometry because it was invented by pagans, but I cannot freely accept a theory used to deny the metaphysical entirely.

Remember, it is not the theory that denies the metaphysical. It is used by some to deny the metaphysical. The problem is in the misuse of the theory, not in the theory itself. So there is no contradiction in being positive toward the evolution while being negative to the way it has been misused to deny the metaphysical.

Just as there is no contradiction in affirming the Christian faith while rejecting the way it has been misused to justify slavery, suppression of women, torture and war. We know these are abuses of Christian teaching that do not taint the reality of Christ's message. Why can we not treat evolution in the same way? It is not tainted by the way some mistreat it and wrongly use it.

By all means, condemn the misuse of the theory of evolution. But don't reject evolution itself because of it. Evolution itself bears no more blame than a brick that was used to break a window.

Now I used the phrase Darwin's theory to try to define a theory that was rejected initially by Christianity and applauded and embraced by anti-theists.

But it was not initially rejected by Christianity. That is a falsehood that was also created by anti-theists. It fit their own conception of a "warfare" between science and faith.

Christians were some of the first supporters of Darwin's theory. Asa Gray, a devout evangelical Christian, warmly supported and defended Darwin's theory at Harvard, while the Deist Louis Agassiz rejected it. Aubrey Moore, an Anglo-Catholic leader of the Oxford Movement, warmly welcomed Darwin's theory, in part as a defence against the latent Deism of Paley's "Natural Theology". It is worth noting too, that Darwin is buried in Westminster Cathedral, hardly where one would find a person the Church considered a heretic and enemy of the faith. David Livingstone has written an interesting book on early Christian reaction (both positive and negative) to Darwin's theory called "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders".

However Darwins original theory has been changed since its introduction to the world. I guess my question could be answered by Metherion, you said wrap your own philosophy around it and unwrap the atheist philosophy from it, is truth so pliable? Can any theology or preferred philosophy be wrapped around anything so easily as you make it sound?

It is not the truth that is pliable, but philosophy. And if a philosophy as defective as atheism can be "wrapped around" evolution, how much more so can Christian truth be used to swaddle any truth pertaining to creation?

Now no one has attempted to address the my difficulty with Luddites statement

"All of those things have to do with what is between humans and God.

Evolution says nothing about it, because evolution says only something about how humans are made up and came about in a biological way. Nothing else."

If God is the infinite summation of all existence and being, the sustain-er of life, than how can God have nothing to do with this as Luddite appears to be saying?

Luddite will have to speak for himself, but I didn't take his meaning as that God had nothing to do with biology, but that the theory of evolution has nothing to say beyond biology.

 

[Mallon]

It is worth noting too, that Darwin is buried in Westminster Cathedral

I'm going there next week!

 

[Luddite]

Luddite will have to speak for himself, but I didn't take his meaning as that God had nothing to do with biology, but that the theory of evolution has nothing to say beyond biology.

You are right. We have to see God as continuously creating in and through the natural world, since all of creation is Gods work, including abiogenesis and evolution. However, evolution as a scientific theory doesn't thereby go beyond the natural sciences; it remains a theory that explains natural causes in science, and therefore, is not the business of theology.

In the same way, geology doesn't dictate theology, even though the creation of the earth is the work of God, and astrophysics doesn't dictate theology either, even though the creation of the entire universe and it's workings is Gods work.

We have to separate science, which is the methodological investigation of natural causes, and theology, which is the understanding of how we as humans relate to God and creation.