Theological of Evolution

[Assyrian]

bibliolatry
a false notion of inspiration
scientism as the ground of theological truth

All pretty good things to lose IMO

We have the example of geocentrism to compare it with, when Copernicus showed the earth moved round the sun, the mistaken geocentric interpretations collapsed. We also got a deeper appreciation of how God speaks to us through scripture, how God accommodated scripture to our limited understanding, like a nursemaid with an infant, scripture was written in terms of the scientific and theological understanding of the day.

But today literalism has completely adopted heliocentric interpretations as if they were the most natural and obvious way to read those passages.

There is no reason why literalists of the future won't do the same thing with evolution when it is a firmly established in the culture as heliocentrism is today.

 

[Melethiel]

... they won't have any idea how to handle neuropsychology. You want a threat on the science-religion frontier? Look no further.

Sometimes I wonder if, for all its detriments, the real harm of creationism is that it diverts a lot of noise and energy from the really pressing matters: foundational physics, neuropsychology, anthropology and comparative religious studies. Those things will make Christians wonder long after evolution and anti-evolutionism have finished flashing in the pan. A systematic conservative investigation of science and Christianity is needed for those, not the silly knee-jerk "Hey look how scientific we can be too, dumb infidels!" we see right now in the creationist movement.

I agree. I find some of the conclusions from those fields much more troubling than anything the crevo debate comes up with.

Neuropsych is a fascinating field, btw.

 

[shernren]

I agree. I find some of the conclusions from those fields much more troubling than anything the crevo debate comes up with.

Neuropsych is a fascinating field, btw.

But it isn't half as catchy as evolution. After all, evolution has inspired "goo to you via the zoo", "I'm not a monkey that got lucky", etc. Neuropsych? What - "don't blame the hormones"?

 

[The Lady Kate]

But it isn't half as catchy as evolution. After all, evolution has inspired "goo to you via the zoo", "I'm not a monkey that got lucky", etc. Neuropsych? What - "don't blame the hormones"?

Maybe that's the problem... the "True Believers" only fight against the things that they can mock with a catchy slogan.

 

[juvenissun]

But today literalism has completely adopted heliocentric interpretations as if they were the most natural and obvious way to read those passages.

There is no reason why literalists of the future won't do the same thing with evolution when it is a firmly established in the culture as heliocentrism is today.

Before any interpretation is to give, there has to be some texts to consider. Geocentric or heliocentric, there are some Bible verses that could be used to argue about it one way or another.

Where is (are) the Bible verse(s) for us to consider the possibility of biological evolution? Without the Bible verse, literalist will never consider its possibility even it is true.

 

[Mallon]

Where is (are) the Bible verse(s) for us to consider the possibility of biological evolution? Without the Bible verse, literalist will never consider its possibility even it is true.

In that case, what do you, as a literalist, think about germ theory, atomic theory, or the wave-particle duality of light? Neither of these well-accepted theories are mentioned in the Bible either. I take it consistency demands that you not consider these things, either?
Why must a particular topic be mentioned in the Bible in order for you to consider it? Does the Bible tell you to do so?

 

[Jase]

I agree. I find some of the conclusions from those fields much more troubling than anything the crevo debate comes up with.

Neuropsych is a fascinating field, btw.

Probably best for a new thread, but do you ( as well as Shernren) feel that fields like neuropsych, physics, and anthropology are on their way to explaining away God?

 

[Melethiel]

Probably best for a new thread, but do you ( as well as Shernren) feel that fields like neuropsych, physics, and anthropology are on their way to explaining away God?

No...although neuropsych does raise some fascinating questions. I don't think it's possible to "explain away God" if one has a proper grounding in theology.

 

[juvenissun]

In that case, what do you, as a literalist, think about germ theory, atomic theory, or the wave-particle duality of light? Neither of these well-accepted theories are mentioned in the Bible either. I take it consistency demands that you not consider these things, either?
Why must a particular topic be mentioned in the Bible in order for you to consider it? Does the Bible tell you to do so?

I am indeed pretty mad about you. You always mess up the goal of the argument.

The emphasis of this argument is on the "literalist", and a necessary condition for that is "the Bible". I was responding to Assyrian's argument. He was comparing the history of geocentrism to the future possibility of evolution. You simply thrown in all the junk terms and messed up the debate.

Bible literalist does not argue on issue which is not related to the Bible. In order to make evolution a debatable issue with literalist, the issue must be at least implied in the Bible. Otherwise, it is then a science question, not a Biblical question. Give another example, Bible literalist DOES have to argue about plate tectonics, because many places in the Bible, this process is implied. You would want ask me: Where? Show me? Well, that was my question to evolution in the post you responded to.

 

[Mallon]

I am indeed pretty mad about you. You always mess up the goal of the argument.

Sorry that my questions always make you so angry by ruining your arguments.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Let's assume for the sake of argument evolution is one day proven right. What are the theological ramifications, if any, of this proof? What is lost from the Christian faith?

EDIT: Blegh. Messed up the title.

For those who interpret the Bible literally, I suspect those who embraced an "all or nothing" belief would abandon Christianity completely. Other literalists would find some way to deny the evidence (further evidence of Satan's growing influence, for example), while others might re-examine their beliefs and change them as needed.

The real challenge, as I see it, would be among the non-literalists. First, to keep from being perceived as gloating that their position was right all along. Second, to present a clear, concise message that allows for evolution AND the existense of God. Put another way, how does one explain a non-literal God?

Both of the above groups are those who have studied the Bible either through their church, classes, or privately.

For those who are vaguely aware of the Bible but have stayed away from Christianity, the challenge would be to present a message that meets their needs.

For some, the theological implications could be immense because it could open new avenues of understanding God. For others, the theological implication could be catastrophic because the way of understanding God has been taken away.

I'm afraid I am rambling rather than coming up with coherent ideas so will stop now.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[IndyPirate]

For those who interpret the Bible literally, I suspect those who embraced an "all or nothing" belief would abandon Christianity completely. Other literalists would find some way to deny the evidence (further evidence of Satan's growing influence, for example), while others might re-examine their beliefs and change them as needed.

Why does that seem so oddly familiar to me?

 

[Paul365]

For those who interpret the Bible literally, I suspect those who embraced an "all or nothing" belief would abandon Christianity completely. Other literalists would find some way to deny the evidence (further evidence of Satan's growing influence, for example), while others might re-examine their beliefs and change them as needed.

I think very, very few would abandon Christianity just because of some scientific discovery. And those who do weren't real Christians anyway.

99,999% of literalists would insist that evolution still must be wrong. In a battle of faith and reason, faith always wins.

 

[artybloke]

And those who do weren't real Christians anyway.

I never liked this accusation. It's not up to you to decide who the "real Christians" are.

If I divorce my wife because she commited adultery, does that mean I didn't love my wife? If the church I belonged to fed me lies and I decided to have nothing more to do with it, does that mean I didn't really believe in it?

 

[Assyrian]

The real challenge, as I see it, would be among the non-literalists. First, to keep from being perceived as gloating that their position was right all along. Second, to present a clear, concise message that allows for evolution AND the existense of God. Put another way, how does one explain a non-literal God?

What exactly is a non literal God? It sounds like a deity that doesn't actually exist but is a metaphor describing something else, maybe like Pratchett's deity Bilious the Oh God of hangovers? A non existent, non literal God does not require any explaining. Just tell people you are an atheist, they will understand. However no TE believes this, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.

There is a difference between the bible using metaphors, God using metaphors even, and God himself being a metaphor. The bible is full of parables and metaphors being told to us by God. God himself is described in metaphors. Psalm 91:4 He will cover you with his feathers. Under his wings you will take refuge. His faithfulness is your shield and rampart. Does God literally have wings and feathers? Just because the description of God is no literal, does it mean God is non literal?

 

[Mallon]

I never liked this accusation. It's not up to you to decide who the "real Christians" are.

It's also a fallacy.

The fact is that many good Christians have lost their faith because they've been erroneously trained to believe that they must choose between their God-given minds and a Sunday-school interpretation of the Bible; that attempts to reconcile science and faith are pandering to the world if we don't fully subject the former to a simplistic understanding of the latter. Thus, many budding Christians are forced to either abandon their faith, or to reject every good sense and entertain the most ludicrous ideas about science and the Bible (this forums is rich with examples).

Of course, the way around this is to do a better job of teaching the strengths and limitations of science early on in school. Ditto the Bible in Sunday school.

 

[Assyrian]

Before any interpretation is to give, there has to be some texts to consider. Geocentric or heliocentric, there are some Bible verses that could be used to argue about it one way or another.

No it is not an issue of arguing in retrospect whether the verse interpreted geocentrically by every church father who addressed it can be interpreted some other way. Obviously the church came up with new interpretations when the science told them their traditional literal interpretation was wrong. You hold these new interpretations yourself and consider them the obvious way to interpret the passages. It wasn't obvious before Copernicus.

Where is (are) the Bible verse(s) for us to
The issue is that there was a wide range of verses in scripture universally interpreted as describing a geocentric cosmos before the time of Copernicus, a literal interpetation which is shown to be wrong, and the effect on our approach to scripture of having a traditional literal interpretation contradicted by science.
consider the possibility of biological evolution? Without the Bible verse, literalist will never consider its possibility even it is true.

Where are the verses that tell us about atomic theory or the double helix of DNA? Literalists don't have any problem with these. Literalist don't even have a problem with heliocentrism, which does not have any verses that teach it, only verses where the literal geocentric meaning has to be explained away.

The issue is not verses that teach evolution, but verses that literalists think contradict it. Passages they interpret as teaching a young earth and that Adam was molded from dust. But this is no different from having passages people all believed said the sun went round the earth. Just find a new way to read the passage when the science tells you you interpretation is wrong. At least with the age of the earth, there have always been interpretations of Genesis that did not take the days literally.

 

[Maranatha27]

I have never talked to a Christian that believed in evolution. I Think you brought up some good points. Im intrested though how this has effected your belief as a whole, if at all. Heres a few questions:

Resurection of Christ: bodily or spiritual

Israel seperate entity from the church or the Church replaced Israel.

The second coming of Christ. An event in the future visable to the world or other

Christ the way to God or one of many

You dont have to answer, but it would be intresting to see how you answer.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have never talked to a Christian that believed in evolution. I Think you brought up some good points. Im intrested though how this has effected your belief as a whole, if at all. Heres a few questions:

Resurection of Christ: bodily or spiritual

Israel seperate entity from the church or the Church replaced Israel.

The second coming of Christ. An event in the future visable to the world or other

Christ the way to God or one of many

You dont have to answer, but it would be intresting to see how you answer.

I'll answer the whole thing in one shot. One position on evolution and creation is largely unrelated to every single question you've asked.

I'll go out on a limb and say most (Christian, as opposed to, say, Muslim) TEs will say the following: bodily resurrection, visibile second coming, and Christ is the only way to God.

Now, TEs do run the gamut. So, don't expect unanimity. Similarly, we could list questions that would split the YECs. For example, predistination or free-will.

 

[Maranatha27]

I'll answer the whole thing in one shot. One position on evolution and creation is largely unrelated to every single question you've asked.

I'll go out on a limb and say most (Christian, as opposed to, say, Muslim) TEs will say the following: bodily resurrection, visibile second coming, and Christ is the only way to God.

Now, TEs do run the gamut. So, don't expect unanimity. Similarly, we could list questions that would split the YECs. For example, predistination or free-will.

I would like Assyrian to answer.