Thursday, 27 August 2009
-
Does Evolution Contradict Christianity?
This is mainly for Christians already thrown into the Genesis-Evolution hoopla. I think some of the problems pointed out in theistic evolution can be resolved by pointing out similar problems or paradoxes in other beliefs that we continue to hold. If those other beliefs are consistent with Christianity, so is evolution by the same degree. Here's a few.
1. Evolution means everything that ever happened was random.
It's true that naturalistic evolution would imply that everything happened by random, but obviously theists don't have to look at it that way. From the view point of the Christian, the theory of evolution just describes the formation of life from a scientific scope. That doesn't mean that it's the only way of looking at something. If I asked you "Why is the book standing on the table?", you can answer saying "because I placed it there", or "because gravity pulls each side down with equal force", or "because it is not spherical." There are different levels of explanation. One level doesn't of itself exclude other levels of explanation. Atheists are committed to only materialistic explanations, but there is nothing in the idea of evolution that positively excludes teleology. Christians believe that rain is perfectly natural, while believing that God is just as involved in it as with everything else. This paradox is the same with evolution.
2. If evolution is true, God did not specially create me.
In what way did God "create" you? Did he specifically make you out of nothing? No, your existence is the destination of the life passed down by your mother and father through the natural vehicle of pregnancy. We apparently were born completely out of a natural process. But does that threaten your belief that God created you? I don't think it should. In fact, it never made anyone doubt for the past five thousand years that God created them. But what could the psalmists possibly mean when they asserted that God specially created them? They meant that God was somehow (even though we may not exactly know how) involved in the process of creation. As in the previous example where an objection to evolution can be applied to rain, this objection can be applied to pregnancy. My tentative conclusion: If belief in both pregnancy and special creation are consistent, so is belief in evolution and special creation. I won't argue that the former is consistent, since Christians already believe it is.
3. Evolution contradicts Genesis.It contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but are there reasons for thinking Genesis 1 to be only interpreted literally? As an English major, I've read different genres of literature from different time-periods. Each has a distinctive tone and set of elements that compose it. The bible didn't invent a way of communicating; it didn't create a new genre. The writers of the bible deferred to pre-existing genres of literature. And I think Genesis 1 contains elements found in poetic literature of that time (and ours). A list of them would include its parallelism and use of contrasting symbols (light/darkness, tree of life/good and evil, eating the fruit (or consequences). These symbols suggest an allegorical interpretation of the story.
One block that seems to make it impossible to reconcile evolution with a benevolent God is the existence of animal suffering before and after the Fall. I don't know how to reconcile the two. This problem with it remains the only thing that prevents me from fully endorsing evolution. I'd have to more closely study what the Fall was and it's implications for the human race to get a better grasp of its relation with evolution. If you have any comments on this, please share.Do you think evolution and Christianity can be/are simultaneously true? Do you agree with the three arguments above, that in these points evolution and Christianity do not contradict each other?
-
recommend
- recs 6
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: nyclegodesi24@xanga
- Name: Hard to get
- Location: Staten Island, New York, United States
- About Me: VERITAS.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 15 Views: 0 12367 Comments: 0 799 View all posts by nyclegodesi24@xanga
Comments (207)
#1 Why do you assume that it must be random?
#2 If not random they why were you not specifically made?
#3 Yes it does, but that would only prove that we do not understand everything.
Evolution is not a death blow to Christianity. The fight is so strong over it because without it atheism has nothing to support itself.
I agree with trunthepaige
The science of evolution is broken into that set from 'random' as put, and also that idea that there is a great more organized force behind it. It is not specific to one or the other in its explanation.
To me evolution is a theoretical explanation on how G*d created our universe and us and
The Bible is the layman's version of it. I think that dismissing a THEORY (as all historical science is) is simply a way of being blissfully ignorant.
1. "Evolution means that everything that ever happened was random." No, actually evolution, in biology, is due to selective breeding. Characteristic X gives a subject a greater chance at passing its genes along than other subjects lacking characteristic x.
2. "If evolution is true, God did not specially create me." The concept of evolution is based off of an observed fact. Living things do change over time. Evolution is the explanation of how that happens, and furthermore what we can expect given that we stumble upon another population that appears to have changed over time. What does that have to do with religion?
3. "Evolution contradicts Genesis." Tell me, did a n incredible scientific mind conceive of the book of Genesis and then write it as a literal explanation of how everything began? Do you have any way of testing the validity of Genesis? I doubt it. Can you test the validity of evolution? Yes you can. If you want to base all medical, biological, physics, and chemical science off of what "Genesis says", then be my guest. I prefer to rely on what can be tested and validated.
@DarthPatriot@xanga - @trunthepaige@xanga - im not sure if those questions are aimed at me, but if they are, I'd ask you to read what I said again.
If I'm reading your words properly I think we pretty much agree.
1) I think many evolutionists would disagree with the presented statement. I'm inclined to say that even if everything begun randomly (which you don't have to say to approve of the evolutionary process) that doesn't mean everything that happens is random and unexplainable. The spark of creation can't be proven, no evolutionist would say otherwise and neither will any creationist. There are guesses, stories, and theories. That's fine. No matter the point of origin, processes of adaptation can be explained and the mystery between step 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 can be explained. Science shows how things happen and continue to exist. Science reveals many processes and explains them and reproduces them. Certainly if something requires some sort of formula to exist, grow, die, reproduce and so on it is not random but it is unique and explainable. A tree does not randomly grow in a crack of sidewalk, there are elements that make its growth possible. It is not random except for that fact that it is unexpected.
2) This is like saying G-D did not intentionally create fruit, baby animals, or rain. G-D created a universe full of processes. He knows each step and determined each step to come about when he originally created the universe. Evidences of processes in creation are the hydro-cycle, reproduction of plant and animal life, and the cycle of life to death to life (I'm not sure of the technical term) when animals and plants die and they turn into enriching soil. Even if humans were a part of this process of evolution (in whatever form) it doesn't mean G-D did not have his hand in it, it just means he went about it in a different way than the author of Genesis wrote (and this wouldn't contradict the scripture). Does G-D not intentionally raise each chick out of it's egg? We forget that man was made from the dust and women from the bone of men. Mankind was not created ex nihilo (out of nothing). They were created out of earth and previous human form.
3) One important fact to remember is that the Genesis account is eastern myth. It's a story. I think it is a true story but it's still story. It wasn't written to be scientific. It was written to explain the way things are (well, how things were at the time of writing) and to reveal the truth of our Creator G-D. He must tread lightly when we use the creation account to combat (or support) scientific research. If we're not careful we will look awfully foolish.
As for the relation between the fall and the evolutionary process, I'm
just going to point back to the fact that Genesis 1 is not intended to
be paired up against scientific claims. The need to reconcile this
seeming complication is unnecessary. Even if it was, it could be worked
out by saying there was a time in the evolutionary process where
nothing harm anything else and everything simply grew. But again,
Genesis 1 is story and not historical/scientific data.
At the end of the day, even if every aspect of evolution is true it doesn't nullify the truth of scripture which says G-D is the creator of all things. I think it is possible for evolution and creation to walk hand in hand depending on your definition of one, the other, or both.
If the universe could document it's own inception and process till now it would be incredibly helpful. Come on universe, get a pen and paper and help us little humans out! We need data and praises!
Evolution contradicts what many people want Christianity to be.
I believe it is very likely that God used some sort of evolutionary process, but there are still many things I have yet to learn about both evolution and the Bible that keep me from fully embracing evolution.
I really enjoyed your post.
Evolution is fine and dandy, as long as it does not contradict the Bible. If you can make it fit, great! But make sure it is your theory you are changing, and not the message of scripture.
@trunthepaige@xanga - @xDark_horizonx@xanga - @DarthPatriot@xanga -
You guys fail at reading.
(assuming you were trying to correct the OP; if you weren't, sincere apologies)
@Jazzyful@xanga - Do you have even the remotest idea how little I was interested in your lame opinion?
@trunthepaige@xanga - It's a good post. You're doing injustice to it by scanning the bold stuff and reprimanding the OP. Sorry for sounding lame and opinionated.
@Jazzyful@xanga - Lame you were, I will respond anyway I feel like. I will be the one to choose when to put great depth into a comment. Or if an entry needs or deserves that much attention. It not as if revelife is so full of quality discussion that I was cluttering such a great intellectual debate.
If what I said was not of interest to you ignore it. It not as if you added anything intelligent (if that is even in you) to this discussion with your catty sniping.
@trunthepaige@xanga - There's really no need to get so defensive about it...my last comment wasn't dictating how you ought to feel or what you ought to think, just recommending the post. The quality of your comment is kind of incidental to my point, which is that the post is worth actually reading.
What you said was of interest to me--I thought that you missed out on some intriguing content, content which it seemed looked like you would be interested in reading, based on your comment. Yeah, I phrased it in a way that was "catty", but I didn't realize how seriously offensive that could be to you. For that, I apologize; I hope you reread the post and that you're not judging the quality entry based on what I said to you.
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution. To me, it just makes sense.
@trunthepaige@xanga - The fight [over Evolution] is so strong over it because without it atheism has nothing to support itself.
You're pulling this one out of your ass.
Yes-- the culture war has lent fuel to the popular and political fights over Evolution, but serious defense of Evolution has been built from its scientific coherency and support. There is an overwhelming concensus for the theory of evolution within the scientific community.
If you really think that Evolution is supported mainly as a leg to secular humanism, then I challenge you to defeat the theory.
@Jazzyful@xanga - OK next time try something more constructive less "can't you read". It is possible that I just did not appreciate the depth of this entry the way you did.
@CelestialTeapot@xanga - Abiogenesis sure. I have done it before and have never have seen anyone make a case beyond "well it had to be, it just did".
As to its importance to your faith. It is everything to you, but to me just a side note
Genesis-Evolution Hoopa: just love your opening statement!!!! In your wisdom you presented and explain this is wonder. Now this is just me, God bless U and how you presented this.
The Evolution believes that the universe and all it contains is the result of matter, so dense that the matter was invisible, suddenly exploding in a megaexplosion labelled by evolutionary scientist as the Big Bang. Now many scientists believe that this explosion occurred between eight and twenty billion years ago. Now any order for anyone to accept the Big Bang, one must assume the existence of MATTER AND ENERGY TO BE ETERNAL. Now the Big Bang model only attempts to explain the ordering of matter and energy, not their origin.
Now do I believe in something by faith. Yes I believe that God created this world and everything in it. Now this is faith and it is beyond the reach of science to test. there are no experiement s that can text who or what was here when the universe began. So when we speak of origins, neither the creation model nor the evolution model can be tested or verified by reporducible scientific experiements. this takes both models of origins out of the realm of science and into the arena of faith.
So what do I believe in by faith: it is either faith in eternal matter and energy
or faith in eternal God.
"1. Evolution means everything that ever happened was random.
It's true that naturalistic evolution would imply that everything happened by random, but obviously theists don't have to look at it that way...."
------------------------------------------
That Evolution happens "ramdomly" or that it is built on "randomness" seems built from popular misconceptions or oversimplifications of The Theory of Evolution.
Many natural processes are stochastic-- they work with a statistical liklihood and becomes virtually ensured over a given length of time. Some of the "randomness" of Evolution includes:
1. Genetic mutations creating new, benifical genes.
2. The successful selection of those new genes to an entire population of organsims.
Just because it's "random" doesn't mean it's incorrect or that it can't happen.
Winning the state lottery is virtually impossible for a given person. But with an entire state playing over the span of years, a handful of winners if virtually ensured.
Evolution-- mutations and natural selection-- is natural lottery that occurs in whole populations of organisms over tens of thousands of years. On this scale, winning become fairly likely.
@trunthepaige@xanga - 'OK next time try something more constructive less "can't you read".'
I already apologized for my tone.
"It is possible that I just did not appreciate the depth of this entry the way you did."
It is possible...but that's not really the vibe I get from your comment. That's all.
@Jazzyful@xanga - That will teach me to fall for a false "I'm really a nice person". I was right the first time, your just a snotty cat, made bold by the net.
@trunthepaige@xanga - You really did pull that out of your ass.
You dont need any type of proof to be athiest, people can be whatever the hell orientation they want to be with their own beliefs, regardless if they have an arguement for it or not.
And calling a person a snotty cat over the internet is pretty bold as well. Take your own advice. Put up or shut up.
@tau_1@xanga - I'm glad that you do believe in scientific fact.
@trunthepaige@xanga - Abiogenesis sure. I have done it before and have never have seen anyone make a case beyond "well it had to be, it just did".
This entry discusses The Theory of Evolution. I assumed that when you post your direct reply and your general commentary, it was addressing Evolution.
Don't veer off topic (to abiognesis) just to make debating easier for yourself.
As to its importance to your faith. It is everything to you, but to me just a side note
This statement is silly on two levels:
1. I admitted evolution's active role in our culture war, but I argued that serious defenses of Evolution is built on scientific grounds. Evolution is vehemently backed in the scientific community and in popular discussions because it's scientific fact.
Scientists and popular debaters would be just as pissed if religious naysayers would just as insistently push for a geocentric model of the universe or for a 6,000 year-old earth.
2. In policy discussion, this is eactly the case for Creationists and ID'ers.
Evolution is opposed because they threaten the world-view of some conservative Christians. For this, Dover PA is a good case study.
@CelestialTeapot@xanga - In other words you think are right, so I make to sense to me.
If you can't prove Abiogenesis then evolution in the Darwinian mold falls apart. No one doubts or ever doubted that you can change animals through generational breeding. But life from minerals? After that we can talk about rest of the theory, but it seems the beginning is good starting point.
@trunthepaige@xanga - "But life from minerals? After that we can talk about rest of the theory, but it seems the beginning is good starting point."
Life from minerals isn't a part of the Theory of Evolution.
If you can't prove Abiogenesis then evolution in the Darwinian mold falls apart.
No it doesn't.
Evolution assumes basic life as a starting point. How basic life first came to be is a seperate question.
@CelestialTeapot@xanga - Oh no oh course not, so are you saying God did it?