How Evolution is possible along with Christianity (A Thread for Christians)

GoldEagle

Deity of All Drummers
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
804
Location
Florida's Space Coast
As you know, I'm an Agnostic, and believe in a type Evolution (incorporating Divine Inspiration). But I feel that, hey, why not help some people who still have faith?

So, you believe in Creation, but you're starting to doubt it. The discovery of fossils dating back hundreds of millions of years, along with recent discoveries of Human-like Primates has turned you toward this decision. Evolution is widely accepted by scientists as well as a majority of people.

Let's start. Do you know who Genesis, the first book of the Bible, was written by? Moses. How would Moses know? It seems to me that in the desert he needed a good way to explain how man came to be. So, he made the fable up. No one knew back then that interbreeding causes horrible genetic disorders (i.e. the Amish).

Then, the flood. for one thing, he needed a way to explain rainbows. As there wasn't advanced science back then, they didn't know that rainbows are a thing of nature, and are caused by the sun's position. Every Civilization also has a flood parable (like The Epic of Giglamesh). There could have possibly been a flood in Noah's time. It is said that a natural dam broke, and the entire area was flooded. This had been blown out of proportion (just like The Odyssey), and was the Christian's flood parable.


I hope this helped explain a few things unknown to you. I know that these are well-known facts, but I thought it might be helpful for any Christians who haven't heard them before. If I left something out, PM me and I'll add it/explain it ASAP.
 
I wouldn't call myself a Christian but I believe in God in general (if that makes sense) and I tend to agree with you. Ancient humans did not have access to the science we do today. And, even if Moses did converse with God, I don't see God explaining the details of chemistry, physics, genetics, etc.

In my opinion the importance of the Bible doesn't rest with it's descriptive of how the earth was formed, how man evolved, and the various miracles allegedly associated with it; but the general positive values and moral teachings it contains. God just got the ball rolling and sits back and watches as events transpire leaving humans to figure things out for themselves.
 
Sorry, that didn't help. Thanks for trying though.

Honestly, as a Christian, I've gotten to the point where I'm tired of arguing. And awhile back, after meeting a pastor and his wife (The pastor who married my parents, actually) and finding out that they were evolutionists, I had an epiphany: I realized that it doesn't really matter at all. I believe God created the world. I think God's power is infinite, he could have used direct, seven day creation, and he could have used evolution. I don't really care anymore. (And no, before you guys ask, I haven't been convinced by evolutionism or anything. I don't think there's enough evidence for that. I'm really just tired of arguing over something that I don't think fundamentally matters)
 
GoldEagle said:
As you know, I'm an Agnostic, and believe in a type Evolution (incorporating Divine Inspiration). But I feel that, hey, why not help some people who still have faith?

I didn't know we needed help.

GoldEagle said:
So, you believe in Creation, but you're starting to doubt it. The discovery of fossils dating back hundreds of millions of years, along with recent discoveries of Human-like Primates has turned you toward this decision. Evolution is widely accepted by scientists as well as a majority of people.

I've never really understood how evolution and creation aren't compatible, but I still don't see enough evidence to support evolution personally. In the past, "human-like primates" have turned out to be many things (deformed humans, seriously ugly monkeys, even prehistoric pigs)

GoldEagle said:
Let's start. Do you know who Genesis, the first book of the Bible, was written by? Moses. How would Moses know? It seems to me that in the desert he needed a good way to explain how man came to be. So, he made the fable up. No one knew back then that interbreeding causes horrible genetic disorders (i.e. the Amish).

Many fables are made up that way. But Christians believe the Bible was inspired and infallible. Also, the genetic pool wasn't developed at the time of the first humans, so genetic disorders would not be a factor.

GoldEagle said:
Then, the flood. for one thing, he needed a way to explain rainbows. As there wasn't advanced science back then, they didn't know that rainbows are a thing of nature, and are caused by the sun's position. Every Civilization also has a flood parable (like The Epic of Giglamesh). There could have possibly been a flood in Noah's time. It is said that a natural dam broke, and the entire area was flooded. This had been blown out of proportion (just like The Odyssey), and was the Christian's flood parable.

This, like your theory on Genesis, is pure speculation. How do you know he made these things up? Also, the fact that every civilization has a flood parable is commonly-used evidence that a world-wide flood did occur at one time. Perhaps Noah was the first. And by the way, Gilgamesh did some seriously weird things (floating around in a cube-shaped vessel) that would discredit him.

GoldEagle said:
I hope this helped explain a few things unknown to you. I know that these are well-known facts, but I thought it might be helpful for any Christians who haven't heard them before. If I left something out, PM me and I'll add it/explain it ASAP.

They aren't well-known facts. You've just spent your entire post blindly speculating on the nature of Biblical stories. And what did this have to do with evolution?
 
Evolution and Creation are two opposite end of the spectrum. The problem is that evolution is against all that God stands for. This is why anyone who calls themself a Christian should see where they really lie because you really cannot say that you are a Christian and believe in evolution because those two things are mutually exclusive.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877/

I do hope that any Christian here has a look at that link to see what the message of evolution really is. It is not friendly to Christianity.
 
Really, they're not incompatible if you realize that Creationism is a metaphor for what happened.
 
Start with Genesis 1:1 and go on through the rest of the book.

Most Christians don't see Genesis as a literal interpretation of the so called beginning years, but as a metaphor of what happened. Call it 'Poetic Licesnse'.

And this isn't a new thing. I learned Evolution from a Catholic school back in the 80s.
 
I'm a Catholic, and I, also, was taught evolution in Catholic School, elementary and high school. I found that, in my own opinion, evolution is perfectly compatible with creationism. The odds of evolution and how it works seem to be very improbable to me, and this is where God comes in. I believe God guided evolution through natural processes into the humans that we have today.
If there is a major fallacy here, please tell me, so I can revise my "theory."
 
GoldEagle said:
Do you know who Genesis, the first book of the Bible, was written by? Moses.
There is no textual evidence that Moses wrote any of the books of the bible, that he did is just a jewish tradition. Looking into Genesis suggests it was written by more than one person (e.g. the two creation accounts and different words for "God" used in the book).
Classical Hero said:
I do hope that any Christian here has a look at that link to see what the message of evolution really is. It is not friendly to Christianity.
Evolution doesn't have a 'message', it is a scientific theory.
 
The idea that Catholics can believe in evolution is not only from Pope John Paul II saying that the Church accepts eviloution, but it goes back to the 1950 encyclical by Pope Pius XII. Before I continue with the modern belief that Catholics hold, I feel its best to just provide a little history on the topic.

-Pre Vatican II & Pope Pius XII-​

Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis, holds a neural possition in regards to evioultion. "The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." (Pope Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis).

"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4)

Pope Pius XII's statement can be summarized as the following:
1. The question of the origin of man's body from a pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquirty for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.
2. Catholics must believe that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being though transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all man kind. Catholics may not, therefore believe in "polygenism".

-Post Vatican II & Pope John Paul II-​

Flash forward to Vatican II and the years after that. Modern theologians dont necesarily see a conlict between polygenism and the Catholic teaching on original sin while some disagreed. It was on October 22, 1996 that Pope John Paul II made his address to the Pontifical Academy of Science and updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body, however in the same address the late Pope rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution)

More in detail on John Paul II's Message to the Pontifical Academy of Science on Evolution

-Pope Benedict XVI-​

In the Papacy of Benedict XVI, recent statements by Cardinal Schonborn has lead confusion over the Church's stance on the compatibility between evolution and Catholic Dogma. After learning the lessons learned from the Galileo affairs, the Church leaves the evaluation and endorsements of specific scientific theories to scientists. The Church has always agreed with scientists on matters such as the age of the Earth and the authenticity of fossil records. Pope Benedict XVI (Then Cardinal Ratzinger at the time when adding this statement) stated;

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.

A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation." (paragraph 63, 68-69 from "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

Pope Benedict XVI (Then Cardinal Ratzinger at the time when he made the following statement) stated that "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities." (Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)

-Catholic teaching on creation-​
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church on faith, evolution, and science in the 1997 edition are found in paragraphs 159, and 283-284.

159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)

283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....

284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

-Conclusion-​
Today, Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church do not conflict with one another. Only faith and scientific finding regarding man's material body are not in conflict with the Church's teachings and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origan. In short this sourt of view falls into the spetrum of the viewpoint of theistic evolution.
 
Masquerouge said:
The majority of Christians have no problems with Evolution. Frankly, the issue exist only in America.
"Only in America"? There are no Christians outside of America who are Creationists? Do you have anything to back up that broad assertion?
 
classical_hero said:
Evolution and Creation are two opposite end of the spectrum. The problem is that evolution is against all that God stands for. This is why anyone who calls themself a Christian should see where they really lie because you really cannot say that you are a Christian and believe in evolution because those two things are mutually exclusive.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877/

I do hope that any Christian here has a look at that link to see what the message of evolution really is. It is not friendly to Christianity.
Stephen Jay Gould speaks for evolution no more than you speak for the Catholic Church. :rolleyes: Not that "Creation Ministries International" has much credibility to start with.
Here's a link right back at you.
Here's another link that may clear up some questions you have.

Reading such texts is good for you:
Isaiah said:
Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord.
...
let us plead and argue together. Set forth your case, that you may be justified (proved right)
source

We can start with the age of the earth, because Creationism never stands up to serious scrutiny.

Elrohir said:
"Only in America"? There are no Christians outside of America who are Creationists? Do you have anything to back up that broad assertion?
I can say that there is at least one in Norway. He or she wrote a letter to a newspaper a few weeks back.
 
I can tell that many Christians have the idea that there is no evidence for evolution. This is because Creationist groups say things like "there are no transitional fossils" when there are litertally thousands of examples, or "all fossils though to be ancient hominids are really something else" when for every pig tooth there are a hundred fossils that are clearly hominid ancestors. If one looks into all the evidence it is clear.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
I can tell that many Christians have the idea that there is no evidence for evolution. This is because Creationist groups say things like "there are no transitional fossils" when there are litertally thousands of examples, or "all fossils though to be ancient hominids are really something else" when for every pig tooth there are a hundred fossils that are clearly hominid ancestors. If one looks into all the evidence it is clear.
Without intending to get into a big debate (I'm really sick of them on this subject) I don't think it's nearly as clear as you make it out to be. I've looked into this subject a lot, and listened to arguments from both sides. And while the Creationist side is indeed plagued by a lot of junk science and people who don't know what they're talking about (Kent Hovind, for example) they do have some really good arguments. Evolutionsts, on the other hand, seem to have the full weight of academia on their side. But far too often they refuse to condescend to debate the subject, or go off course when they do. (Gould's anti-religious campaigns, which don't really have anything to do with evolution, are a good example of this) I've also been distinctly unimpressed by the supposedly overwhelming fossil evidence.

Like I said, I'm basically at the point where I don't really care a whole lot, and I don't want to debate it. But I wouldn't say that it's clear cut; there are arguments for both sides, and there is no clear answer.
 
I found Gould to be quite supportive of science. I also found that I cannot accept any pf the claims made by Creationists in the name of science. But then, this is not necessarily the place to argue it. I have also found that I can't take other parts of the Bible literally either, it's not just Genesis 1 (or Genesis 2, which gives a contradictory account of creation).
 
Elrohir said:
"Only in America"? There are no Christians outside of America who are Creationists? Do you have anything to back up that broad assertion?

If you can point me to active Christian Creationists groups outside the United States, I'd be delighted.
 
Back
Top Bottom