How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

[trey4sports]

(Disclaimer, I'm not Christian.)

So, i've been studying a lot of information regarding Human evolution and I'm genuinely curious how Christians can believe in evolution?

It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.


So, I would just like to get your thoughts on the subject.

do you believe that evolution is a completely fasle theory and creationism is correct?

do you believe maybe the bible isn't completely correct, but that there is a god who started something, somewhere?

Anything in between?

 

[squarepusher]

Vatican supports evoltion. Creationism is only taught by a few fringe fundamental american churches.

[h=1]The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity[/h] [h=2]The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.[/h]

Gianfranco Ravasi: Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church Photo: EPA






By Chris Irvine

8:03AM GMT 11 Feb 2009


Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.

The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

[h=2]Related Articles[/h]

• Charles Darwin: The man behind the theory of evolution
  12 Feb 2009
• The Vatican's search for ET
  10 Nov 2009

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.
Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".
Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's legacy.
They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.
The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds.

 

[Liberty4life]

Having been a Christian my whole life, I have often wondered this same thing, like how can you logically deny the existence of dinosaurs and prehistoric man.

So I figured out that while the Bible is the tool God uses to instruct his flock, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.

Obviously God created man through an evolutionary process, every once in a while He through his Agents would come and do some genetic
modifications to the 'Man experiment'.

Lots of arguments can be made from this point about who started what and who made who, like it was the fallen angels or something that did it and thats why they got into so much doo doo.

A solid argument can be made that God and The Devil are working together to get a desirable outcome for both.
Like, how can a created creature understand why doing good is preferable over doing evil?
You can plain out tell them why or you can show them.

 

[fisharmor]

So, I've been watching nonbelievers ask quesitons like this for a long time, and I'm genuinely curious why someone who supposedly believes evolution to be scientific truth would ask Christians how they can believe in evolution.

You guys let the cat out of the bag yourselves every time it's discussed.
Nobody asks whether you believe in Newton's laws of motion.

I don't believe evolution, and it has very little to do with dogma.

I don't believe it foremost because all the "evidence" I've seen is horseshit.

I don't believe it beause I have no practical application where belief in it is required.

I don't believe it because the practical applications for evolution - they do exist, I simply have no interest in them - all center on the idea of dehumanizing people and are generally totalitarian statist objectives.

There's also the thing about how there is no way logically to balance Christianity with evolution, but believe it or not, this doesn't play a big part in why I think evolution is as big a crock of shit as global climate change alarmism, and for mostly the same reasons.

 

[robert9712000]

I believe in the ability of Animals to make small changes through compatible species mingling like horse and a donkey making a new similar version off the two but not a complete transformation into a new species.

The thing that never made sense to me in the theory of evolution is, you say one animal has a mutation that allows it to survive better,but it is still reliant on random chance to pass on that gene to the next generation.So how would 1 rarity become the dominant gene in a ocean of other genes.Surviving a little longer isn't enough to make it the dominant gene since the prior version was still able to live long enough to breed and continue its genetic info.Since there's 1 copy of the mutated gene and 1000's or more of the other one i would think it would be diluted out like a drop of oil in a ocean.

 

[TheViper]

So, I've been watching nonbelievers ask quesitons like this for a long time, and I'm genuinely curious why someone who supposedly believes evolution to be scientific truth would ask Christians how they can believe in evolution.

You guys let the cat out of the bag yourselves every time it's discussed.
Nobody asks whether you believe in Newton's laws of motion.

I don't believe evolution, and it has very little to do with dogma.

I don't believe it foremost because all the "evidence" I've seen is horseshit.

I don't believe it beause I have no practical application where belief in it is required.

I don't believe it because the practical applications for evolution - they do exist, I simply have no interest in them - all center on the idea of dehumanizing people and are generally totalitarian statist objectives.

There's also the thing about how there is no way logically to balance Christianity with evolution, but believe it or not, this doesn't play a big part in why I think evolution is as big a crock of shit as global climate change alarmism, and for mostly the same reasons.

If evolutionary theory is a crock of shit, do please enlighten us with a better theory.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Natural selection? Sure.

Evolution? No.

Perhaps a believer in evolution could explain how a mutation is an overwhelmingly positive thing. (different thread maybe?)

And how very "fringe" of me to not limit the power of my all powerful God like the Vatican does. Why on earth would I be so backwards as to place the spiritual before the physical when talking about God vs. a human physical "science"?

 

[jmdrake]

You can't reconcile the belief that man evolved "up" from a lower life form with the belief that man was created perfect, fell as a result of sin, and needed Christ to die to redeem us to a higher state. That Catholicism accepts evolution simply shows it is out of step with the Bible. And no, contrary to popular belief it is not just a few "fringe American fundamentalist churches" teach that.

That said, as the OP pointed out the sticking point is macro-evolution. Micro-evolution isn't a problem at all.

 

[Southron]

I believe the Creation account in Genesis. I don't take marching orders from the Vatican either.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So, I've been watching nonbelievers ask quesitons like this for a long time, and I'm genuinely curious why someone who supposedly believes evolution to be scientific truth would ask Christians how they can believe in evolution.

Exactly right. Darwinism is a religious belief.

Besides, science cannot prove anything to be true. At best, science can only disprove certain hypotheses. But science can only approximate.

Einstein said that his theory of relativity was false. He said it may be a better approximation than Newtonian physics, but it was not "true". Truth can't be discovered by science. Also, "false" theories work. Newton's theories worked for hundreds of years.

Why can't a scientific experiment give us truth?

1. Because all arguments based on scientific experimentation commit the fallacy of induction. A statement of universal truth cannot be constructed from subjective experience.

2. Arguments from scientific experimentation commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. An hypothesis is NEVER logically proved from successful experimentation. Correlation does not imply causation.


Science is useful, but it can never be true. Science is technological, it is not cognitive. It doesnt give us truth nor can it do so. Science is meant to help man subdue God's creation, but it is God alone that gives men truth.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Natural selection? Sure.

Evolution? No.

Perhaps a believer in evolution could explain how a mutation is an overwhelmingly positive thing. (different thread maybe?)

And how very "fringe" of me to not limit the power of my all powerful God like the Vatican does. Why on earth would I be so backwards as to place the spiritual before the physical when talking about God vs. a human physical "science"?

This.

Though I have never consumed myself on an issue of the past such as this.

 

[thoughtomator]

If natural selection worked, how do you explain Newt Gingrich?

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If natural selection worked, how do you explain Newt Gingrich?

You are going to have to clean up my screen. You caused it.

 

[mosquitobite]

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936

If we "evolved" from apes - where did apes come from?

If apes evolved from cosmic goo of some kind - ok fine. Let's pretend they did.
Do you know how many amino acids and chain reactions are involved in a simple blood clot? Honestly asking.

You're asking me to believe that by total *CHANCE* all the amino acids and chain reactions from blood clots happened in the first "evolution" of this creature? Do you know the astronomical odds of that? Let's say just one is missing - how would the species have survived as hemophiliacs?

 

[robert9712000]

A interesting verse for non-believers to contemplate is that God gave a hint to the deception of evolution 1800 years before it was suggested

2 Peter 3

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

I believe God gave the willfully ignorant a stumbling block of the perception that the world appears old to baffle there foolish fantasies.

1 Corinthians 27
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[James Madison]

I will admit that most of the biologists I've worked with forbid any discussion on the validity of evolution. It's almost cult-like.

 

[otherone]

If we "evolved" from apes - where did apes come from?

Darwinists don't make this claim

 

[mosquitobite]

Darwinists don't make this claim

From OP:

It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.

 

[TheViper]

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936

If we "evolved" from apes - where did apes come from?

If apes evolved from cosmic goo of some kind - ok fine. Let's pretend they did.
Do you know how many amino acids and chain reactions are involved in a simple blood clot? Honestly asking.

You're asking me to believe that by total *CHANCE* all the amino acids and chain reactions from blood clots happened in the first "evolution" of this creature? Do you know the astronomical odds of that? Let's say just one is missing - how would the species have survived as hemophiliacs?

You have the premise wrong. Man didn't evolve from modern apes. Modern apes and man evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

macro evolution is not compatible with biblical christianity. more and more scientists are realizing how ridiculous evolution is now and thats why you see so much hypothesis that our ancestors came here long ago from other planets. More and more I have noticed theories being advanced by scientists for extra terrestrial life and pre historic visits. Of course they havent proved anything but they are desperately trying to come up with something else because they are realizing that macro evolution makes no sense and is impossible considering the short time earth has existed.