Alright, I read Jaime's response in a recent thread and it got me to thinking: Why do debates between evolution and creationism get so heated?

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm wondering the following (IYO of course):

Can a Christian accept evolution?
Does evolution cancel the bible?

If a Christian can accept evolution (and still be a Christian) then why try to get evolution overturned?


*I'm not trying to make this another Ev.C debate, so mods, if it becomes such, please close it. I'm looking for reason's why a Christian couldn't accept evolution (in other words, don't attack this from the science aspect, attack it from the religious).



To start things off:

Being a Christian and accepting evolution, I believe a Christian can accept evolution without compromising the faith. I do not believe that evolution cancels the bible and I don't think evolution should be a concern of the modern Christian.

I don't think a Christian can accept evolution, but that's between him and God, I can't judge. Judeo Christians believe that the Torah (the first 5 books of the OT) is the inspired Word of God and the basis for the geneology of Christ. If you don't believe in the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, than the crusifiction meant nothing.

Why would it mean nothing? People still sin, they have and they always will. IIRC Jewish people don't accept Genesis as a literal chronology either. In fact, as I've said, the majority of Christians do not.

That's sad that they don't because the first chapters of Matthew go into the geneology of Jesus all the way back to Adam. Original sin is the basis of why Jesus came. It's the concept that Jesus is the NEW Adam, perfect and obedient. If people do not understand that, then they don't understand why He did what He did on the Cross. Just because the "majority of Christians" don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. There are some things that are true whether we believe in them or not. You can use the same argument. The fundamentals of Judeo- Christianity are set in stone:

God exists. God created everything. God created man in his own image. Man was tempted, disobedient and fell from grace, creating original sin. God provided salvation by becoming a mortal, living a perfect life and dying for our sins and then rising from the dead and ascending into heaven. He promised He would return to take his believers to heaven and to judge mankind.

Those truths make up Christianity and cannot be changed, regardless of whether certain Christians believe them or not.

I was wondering about this myself in response to the other thread so I'm glad that someone has teased it out into a separate thread.

(Before I go on, I should declare for those that don't already know that I'm on the atheist/agnostic, evolution is fact and the Bible is either useful aetiology or interesting myth, often both, but in very few senses is it a factual account or the revealed word of God.)

I think this debate in particular gets heated for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the people who believe the literal truth of the Torah, and therefore intuitively support the creationist position, are in a minority within Christianity. I say this because the official position of Roman and Anglican Catholicism (called Episcopalianism in the USA I think) which numerically account for the majority of Christians worldwide, is that the creation myth is just that, and that evolution is fact. I am of course, assuming that individuals tow the official line of their Communion - while that is a reasonable assumption, there are bound to be exceptions.

So, it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe in the truth of evolution.

The Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible tend (with the implied exceptions) to be of the more non-conformist denominations, which by historical happenstance make up a much larger proportion of Christians in the USA than in most other parts of the world. By definition, creationism is a fundamentalist idea - it appeals to the fundamentals of the Bible instead of the somewhat airy-fairy interpretational arguments of the non-creationist churches. Arguments that the denominations that can reconcile themselves to evolution are somehow not "proper" Christians are internal sectarian arguments that should not concern us in this thread.

But anyway, such Christians found their faith on literal biblical truth, and evolution (obviously) contradicts that truth. Therefore an espousal of evolution can easily be seen as an attack on their faith - a very personal thing that understandably leads to heated debate.

On the other side, many in the atheist/rationalist camp used to be profoundly religious at one time (for me, it was around puberty). It is all too easy for them (us? me?) to see blind faith as a childish thing - something to be grown out of. This can, I think, also be true for those raised as atheists (for example in ex-communist states - few East Germans claim any religious faith), where they also see religious faith as something primitive to be fought against. We see our own faith as something that we grew out of, and we cannot help but come across as patronising when debating with creationists. Plus our "faith" requires us to proselytise for "rationalism" just as much as any missionary.

As an aside, I see scientific creationism - the attempt to look for evidence that either disproves natural selection (wrongly assuming that doing so will also disprove evolution, in my view) or that supports the Biblical creation myth (to my knowledge, there are no Muslim, Jewish, animist, or Aboriginal creation scientists - faith alone is enough for them, it seems) as a relatively new attempt at further proselytising, this time not among a competing religion, but among the atheists and agnostics. As far as I can tell, it is faling to do very much other than entranch exisiting beleivers in their belief, on both sides of the argument. I don't see any evidence of anyone changing their ideas based on the creationist argument and abandoning scientific rationalism in favour of fundamentalist Christianity and creationism. There certainly do not seem to be [i]any[i] creationists who are not also born again and/or fundamentalist Christians.

As another Christian who accepts evolution, I feel that the creation story is just that: a story. Think of it this way: what good would God have accomplished trying to explain genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry (all of which are required to really understand evolution) to Abraham or Jacob. He deliberately let us discover it on our own. So what if evolution is the mechanism by which God created the world as we know it? That doesn't make it any less miraculous. Even atheists admit that without a God our existence is HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely and say that only after a virtually infinite span of time did the big bang occur.

A lot of religious doctrine about the creation was made up by people anyway, "In his perfect design" is nowhere in Genesis. God saw that it was good, and He created the animals according to their kind. That could mean almost anything, which is why some people took it and ran with it. Even what is written is still a human interpretation of what God really said. And mistakes are made. Before God creates the sun, moon and stars, "there was evening and there was morning." How? That indicates to me that the "days" were not literally one rotation of the Earth, but just some unspecified period of time.

And Billy Jean, I agree wholeheartedly with every one of the fundamentals set in stone you listed. Adam did exist, there had to be a first human. And he did disobey God and was cast out of paradise. However, that happened way after God created the world.

I agree. Genesis doesn't give a time frame in which Adam was tempted after creation. Also, it says in the Bible that a day to God is like a thousand years. I'm not saying that God just *POOF* created everything, though he could have, it's very plausible that it was more of a slow process to allow things to set in place, ie the earth, sediment, atmosphere, plants animals breading and populating and (don't laugh) dinosaurs. ALL before mankind. I'm not all knowing and have all the answers just because I'm a Christian, and not a very good one at that. I'd like to think God "allowed" for some variations but NOT without purpose and NOT accidental.

I think it's due to creationists perceiving evolution as an attack to their faith. While evolution itself says nothing about religion or Christianity in particular, creationist ideology, in light of it's lack of scientific support, seems compelled instead to attack evolution as it's attempt to validate itself. The amount of time it takes for those arguing science to point out the gross flaws and inconsistencies of creationism, as well as mock and ridicule, may vary.


Absolutely. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has accepted evolution for the last half century, though some of them are as yet unaware (my father included). Very few Christians, if any, take the entire Bible to be literal truth. As one who has often debated over the Bible, there's almost always at least one thing a Christian will not support or will choose to interpret differently from the general Christian community's perspective.

The creation story is no different. If you still feel the need for an Adam and Eve and original sin, you can rework the interpretation to keep it while simultaneously accepting evolution. Perhaps the significance of man coming last was more the process of evolution than people think... maybe man had to come last as the crowning achievement of God's evolutionary coloring book... whatever. If one insists on maintaining the Biblical creation story, it can still be viewed in a manner reconcilable with known science.

It doesn't cancel the Bible. The only thing it might possibly cancel out is the creation story. But as I said above, it isn't impossible for Biblical literalists to simply interpret the creation story in a different way, taking it literal without being too literal.


There isn't a reason. Most of those seeking to have evolution thrown out are those who feel they can't accept it. There may also be those few stragglers who, in spite of accepting evolution, would like to use it as leverage for slipping religion back into the classroom. If they sign on with the group trying to denounce evolution as a myth and religion, rather than science, the might be able to get Christianity taught right alongside it.

Wow, I've never been able to put it into words until I read that. That's exactly how I feel, although I must add that it's more of a subconscious feeling. I don't think that religious people are childish, but I felt that I outgrew it much like I did santa claus and the tooth fairy. So, it's difficult for me to understand the motivation behind other's faith as an adult. I have to sometimes edit, and re-edit my posts because it seems like I talk down to others as I would a child, which is not my intent of course, I just find that I do it without even thinking about it.

Little things like that can have a snowball effect on a thread about religion vs. evolution.

Agreed. These are usually the same people who insist that the Bible is a book of history instead of a book of faith. As time has gone on, most of the Bible has been proven wrong, at least those elements which are open to scientific evaluation. A tiny minority of Christians demand that the Bible must be completely true and factual from cover to cover and this is simply not a realistic or possible desire.

Unfortunately, as you point out above. creationists seek to somehow 'prove' creationism by attacking evolution. This is ridiculous on the face of it. You cannot prove something by attacking something else, only by providing logical, objective evidence which directly supports the claim. Creationism simply doesn't have any evidence to support it. Every shred of proof shows conclusively that creationism is wrong. It is a failed hypothesis and was rejected by science well over a century ago. If someone's faith is based upon a disproven hypothesis being right, then I'd question the strength of that person's faith.



Virtually every Christian denomination has come to grips with evolution over the past century and virtually all of them accept evolution as true. Literal creationism is a dinosaur that should have gone extinct decades ago but is being kept alive by people who are largely ignorant of science and hold to a literal Bible interpretation. No offense intended to anyone, but faith without basis isn't faith, it's fanaticism. Fanatics don't impress anyone.



Supposedly, the center of a Christian's beliefs is the sacrifice on the cross. If this is so, why make such a big deal about creationism or the flood or any of the rest of the myths in the OT? They shouldn't make a bit of difference to the core tenets of Christianity, yet some Christians refuse to let them go.

It makes me wonder what they really believe if their worldview is so screwed up.

Most Christians accept evolution, and see the creation stories in Genesis as symbolic of God's guiding evolution on earth.

It always takes a while for scientific thinking on a subject to become the accepted paradigm. People railed against the round earth, against the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe, etc.

It's important that we distinguish levels of belief in creationism. Most people who believe in Creation also believe in evolution. The idea of Scientific Creationism is being pushed by a very small, very fundamentalist sector, and the greatest danger (or accomplishment, depending how one views it) is that they have oriented their dialogue to try and define the two positions as mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not at all.

More liberal (in a thought sense, not political) Creationists should try and remember that what evolutionists are "attacking" is a very narrow view - a group that insists on not just any strict interpretation of the Bible, but precisely their strict interpretation. A group which actively denies scientific evidence.

What I really don't get it why some people feel that their very faith is threatened by the idea that the story of Noah's Ark has to be taken symbolically, not as an historical record. My understanding is that the basis of faith is more aptly stated in John 3:16 than it is anywhere in the Old Testament.

I bring that up sometimes to people I know, and they look at me like I'm crazy. So I'm glad to see that someone else feels the same.

Moving on, I don't think that evolution cancels the Bible, and one is still a Christian even if he or she believe in evolution. There are those hard core evolutionists and strict creationists who can't have it any way but their own. But I don't see why there can't be a happy medium-a God who created the world, and then let nature run it's course. Those Christians who say that evolution is not the answer, that creationism is the whole story are those who are very fundamental and take an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. And if that's the way you choose to believe, that's fine. But I think there are many Christians who believe evolution, (and while I know that more people on your side doesn't necessarily make you right), my point just leads back to my belief that Christians canbelieve in evolution without being sacreligious.

Can a Christian accept evolution?

I don't see how unless they, actually believe evolution, is natural selection and the laws of science evolution pretends to represent. Special creation and regeneration (resurrection, new birth, new creation etc) are the heart of the Gospel, take that away you got nothing. You cant believe that God created the heavens and the earth and believe that it occurred all by itself. The two are mutually exclusive.

Does evolution cancel the bible?

Definitely, the only thing that Darwin added to natural selection was the philosophical attack on special creation. Natural selection and natural science were doing fine before evolution and nothing changed after except that the Christian belief in the power of God in our history, or lives, and our eternal future, was rejected a priori. To put it another way evolution contradicts the Bible deliberatly and allways has, allways will, and does now whether Christians believe it or not.

Highly unlikely yes, but it doesn't matter how unlikely something is when it has happened, because we know it has happened, so it is no argument to say something shouldn't happen because it more likely that it won't. (quite difficult to explain, i'll give an example).

Imagine you have a dice with a million numbered faces for example - before you roll it, you could argue that it would be highly unlikely to roll a one on this hypothetical dice; but if you roll a one, you can't make a valid argument that the dice was weighted (for example) because it was so unlikely to land on a one. of course the dice could be weighted, but it is not possible to prove by arguing about probability.

Just as with the dice example, it is not valid to argue that the universe was created by a God simply because it was much more likely that the Universe would not be created, going along with the other theory (the big bang theory).

Whew!

[edited to make the wording more clear]

I'm only an atheist, but if I'm correct in remembering my upbringing, the life, teachings and death of Jesus are the heart of the Gospel. There are many Christians who frequently abandon tales of the Old Testament as having been exaggerated or fabricated without it having to have any bearing on what they know of Jesus -- the man responsible for them being Christians rather than Jews.



Evolution says nothing about the origins of the heavens or the earthy. Astronomy and astrophysics do, and we now know that planets can form according to certain laws rather than spoken words, but that isn't to say that some divine entity isn't playing some hand in it all. Evolution also says nothing about the origin of life, but merely disputes the Genesis account of life being formed complete and immutable. That still isn't to say that a God can't be behind the origin of life or the process that drives evolution. We know how the computers we are typing on work, that they follow certain codes in order to carry out actions, but they still need us to turn them on don't they?



Science and the biological truth don't have a choice in contradicting Genesis unless it resorts to dishonesty. Christians have a choice in whether they're going to place the Old Testament higher than the Gospels and scientific truth.

IMO this strikes pretty close to the heart of the matter. Whether Genesis is interpreted literally or symbolically, many Christians are extremely attached to the notion that man was created separately from animals, that we're fundamentally different than any mere creature. Saying that we're descended not only from apes but all the way back to slime is a grave insult to them.

Another aspect, this time arising from the other direction, is that disbelief in evolution is tantamount to disbelief in the scientific method. Many empirically-minded folks consider that unacceptable, because it implies rejection of so many other fruits from that same tree, even though creationists are rarely so consistent about what they accept and what they reject. It can be very frustrating, to those raised in a tradition of logic and support of facts, to have someone ignore all logical arguments in favor of blind faith.

I think the only resolution would be for the two sides to ignore each other, not because either view is invalid or beneath notice but because there's just nothing to be gained. Scientific theories belong in science classes, and creation stories belong in churches (not just Christian ones). There's no reason for either to intrude on the other.

Just one thing...the teachings and death of Christ are meaningless without the resurrection. The promise of the resurection is tied to the 'special creation' of Genesis 1 throughout the Scriptures. Special creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, they are both premised precisely on the origin (genesis) of life and cannot possibly both be true. If it not about the origin why did the father of evolution call it origin of a species?

I do know why Darwin probably wasnt even thinking about Genesis 1 when he did what he did, except maybe as an after thought and unfortumate consequece. I never bothered to mention it because science and metaphysics are irrelevant to these discussions.

Why would Darwin think about mythology when he was making accurate observations about the real world? The only unfortunate consequence of evolution is that there are far too many people who place more value on fantasy than reality.

Science is very relevant to these discussions as creationists constantly claim that evolution is not science. That's wrong. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science. Science is an attempt to accurately understand the world around us. Creationism is religious fantasy wrapped up in lies, misrepresentation and misquotes in a feeble attempt by some people who cannot handle reality to put forward their false sectarian beliefs as truth.

Let's be honest. The whole evolution "debate" isn't a debate at all, any more than the Flat Earth Society can declare there to be a spherical Earth "debate". It's about a small group of people who should pull their noses out of the Bible now and then and get a good whiff of reality.

These are quotes by JESUS concerning creation:

"So the people of this time will be punished for the murder of all the prophets killed since the creation of the world, from the murder of Abel to the murder of Zechariah, who was killed between the alter and the holy place" (Luke 11:50-51).

"But in the beginning, at the time of creation, it was said, 'God made them male and female'" (Mark 10:6). A similar quote is found in Matt. 19:4.

Here is John Chapter 1 1-5, again speaking of the Creation by God:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.


I just found this amazing document online and this particular section caught my attention:


http://nttg.members.easyspace.com/Dad%20Pa...d_evolution.htm

Now while I don't agree with the rest of the article, I find this very interesting. I'm going to do more research, read my Bible and pray about it; but this has sparked my imagination.

http://www.faithreason.org/index.html This site is VERY interesting too!

Interesting stuff, Billy Jean! So do you think it might be possible for Christians to believe in evolution or do you still think they are exclusive?

If possible, let's try to leave Creationism out of this one, Cephus. It was specifically asked by Meatros that this be closed if it degenerates into another argument between Creationism and evolution. We should be able to get around Creationism entirely in discussing whether or not Christians can believe in evolution.

It might be possible. I can't just change my whole mindset over night. But I'll concede this: That God is the Great Almighty and it is possible that the Creation story in Genesis was told in such a manor because we could not grasp the concepts in which God works. God could quite possibly have explained it the same way we explain things to children who ask really difficult questions; very simply. Not that what we're telling them is a lie, but on the level in which they can comprehend. God could have done the same. God's imagination is beyond compare (look around), but who am I to put limitations on God?