Why does evolution threaten God?

[driewerf]

You could pose the same question to people like Dawkins. He's said he abandoned Christianity when he learned about evolution. So apparently for him God was threatened by that knowledge. I really don't understand the thinking on either side of the issue.

Dawkins reaction is partly originated by biblical literalists themselves. By emphasizing that the bible is inerrantly true, cover to cover, they make christiannity very vulnerable. Someone who starts to accept evolution (or geology, astronomy, astrophysics, archeology,...) and sees errors in the bible has te attitude "If they (christian pastors) were wrong about this, what else were they wrong about?"

 

[driewerf]

Nonetheless, if it were true, would it pose a threat to God? Is the existence of God dependant on how one interprets Genesis? Can one believe in both God and evolution (regardless of how much of a joke you may think it is)?

Biblical literalists have manouvred themselves into a dead end street.

 

[driewerf]

No, one cannot believe the Bible and Evolution at the same time. They contradict each other.

Many catholics do.

 

[Michael]

I have a hypothesis about this.
Not all the christians reject science (like the theory of evolution, star formation, cosmology etc.). Catholics for example combine their faith with science without any problem.
Why? Because their religion is much "richer": they have the pope, the Virgin Mary, a collection of saints, the rosary etc. While evangelicals have rejected all this and have only the Bible left.

Not all evangelicals interpret the Bible "literally", and they all have access to the presence of Christ through the Holy Spirit. IMO you're confusing politics with spiritual "richness". They aren't necessarily related. I was raised Lutheran but that never prevented me from appreciating science or the theory of evolution.

 

[Michael]

Biblical literalists have manouvred themselves into a dead end street.

A scientifically indefensible dead end street too.

IMO that is unfortunate because it does ultimately cause some "Christians" to "loose faith". Many interpret that as "loosing faith in God", rather than "loosing faith in religion". They are not one and the same thing, but many people do equate them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Biblical literalists have manouvred themselves into a dead end street.

Putting fingers in your ears can do wonders for a chronic case of cognitive dissonance .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiki is saying the same thing I said, isn't it?

Yea, but I'm sure you've seen Creationists jump on statements like that as if it's proof evolution is incompatible with God. Nuance and qualification are the Creationist's worst enemies.

I think biological complexity is neither here nor there for atheism or theism - I think the TOE is only a threat for theists who take the first chapters of Genesis literally, and likewise, it's only a weapon for atheists who take the first chapters of Genesis literally.

Well, since quite a few people believe in God based on teleology, it's effectively the crux of their faith. There are obviously other reasons which people variously use to justify their beliefs, but teleology is the hot-button issue of the now.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's an interesting position. Catholics don't feel that way.

Do Catholics feel that Adam and Eve were mutant copy-errors, made in the likeness and image of God?

What exactly makes it "blasphemy" in your opinion?

I explained what makes it blasphemy: Adam & Eve were not mutant copy-errors made in the likeness and image of God.

 

[Michael]

Do Catholics feel that Adam and Eve were mutant copy-errors, made in the likeness and image of God?

I explained what makes it blasphemy: Adam & Eve were not mutant copy-errors made in the likeness and image of God.

I've never heard a Catholic make that claim as a reason for their acceptance of the theory of evolution so I fail to see the connection. Care to elaborate?

 

[driewerf]

Do Catholics feel that Adam and Eve were mutant copy-errors, made in the likeness and image of God?

I explained what makes it blasphemy: Adam & Eve were not mutant copy-errors made in the likeness and image of God.

You make a big mistake.
People who accept evolution don't believe there were an Adam or an Eve. So they couldn't have been "copy-errors".

 

[Michael]

You make a big mistake.
People who accept evolution don't believe there were an Adam or an Eve. So they couldn't have been "copy-errors".

Hmm. I'm not sure that's quite "true" either. Evolution does lead to new "species" that are "created" and unique from their ancestors.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never heard a Catholic make that claim as a reason for their acceptance of the theory of evolution so I fail to see the connection. Care to elaborate?

Perhaps that's why they accept it then; they don't hear the whole story.

 

[AV1611VET]

You make a big mistake.
People who accept evolution don't believe there were an Adam or an Eve. So they couldn't have been "copy-errors".

I do believe Catholics believe in Adam & Eve.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.

 

[Michael]

Perhaps that's why they accept it then; they don't hear the whole story.

They simply "interpret" the same story differently than you do. They presume evolution to be divine tool of God, and making us in his image doesn't mean we're exact copies.

 

[Cabal]

Hmm. I'm not sure that's quite "true" either. Evolution does lead to new "species" that are "created" and unique from their ancestors.

Evolution rules out Adam and Eve being the first humans and progenitors of the race entirely.

I don't see why they couldn't exist besides that.

 

[Chesterton]

Yea, but I'm sure you've seen Creationists jump on statements like that as if it's proof evolution is incompatible with God. Nuance and qualification are the Creationist's worst enemies.

...and they're Dawkin's worst enemies, too. You don't sell tons of books and get the fat lecture fees by saying sensible, non-controversial things, do you?

Well, since quite a few people believe in God based on teleology, it's effectively the crux of their faith. There are obviously other reasons which people variously use to justify their beliefs, but teleology is the hot-button issue of the now.

Well, teleology is not an evolutionary issue; teleology goes much further back, to the beginning of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

They simply "interpret" the same story differently than you do. They presume evolution to be divine tool of God, and making us in his image doesn't mean we're exact copies.

Do we have an internal tail? if so, does God?

 

[driewerf]

Do we have an internal tail?

yes.

if so, does God?

According to atheists: there is no god, so no god's internal tail.
but, according to genesis, if man is made in image of god, than I think people like you, who have i bigger knowledge of the bible than me, could better answer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

...and they're Dawkin's worst enemies, too. You don't sell tons of books and get the fat lecture fees by saying sensible, non-controversial things, do you?

I dunno, Professor Hawking seems to do pretty well

Well, teleology is not an evolutionary issue; teleology goes much further back, to the beginning of time.

Teleology in general goes back further, but since biological systems are some of the most complex known to man, they seem a logical place to start. A rock doesn't exactly exude design. You're right, of course, evolution doesn't explain anything about cosmology, but it still takes a big chunk out of the teleological argument. That's all.

 

[Michael]

Evolution rules out Adam and Eve being the first humans and progenitors of the race entirely.

I don't really interpret the Bible "literally" to begin with, but for argument sake....

Whatever "changes" took place that created what is now a uniquely human species, it could have occurred in one or two generations. Furthermore these same single generation genetic changes could be passed down to others and they too could became "uniquely human" based on these genetic differences. I fail to see why their could not have been a specific "person" (or persons) that we might refer to as an "Eve" or an "Adam" that looked very different from their original parent species due to the unique genetic changes.

Keep in mind that I interpret the whole story metaphorically, but even a "literal" interpretation is possible in terms of science and macroevolutionary theory.