How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

[slamhead]

Because only the ones who didn't die survived. Do you consider that maybe it happened in reverse order? That is, only those with valves were able to lean down, and only those were able to later acquire (inherit, preserve) longer necks?

Well evolution suggest all creatures came from a primordial soup. Species grew over time and adapted. I would think that as food became scarce the giraffes with longer necks out competed the those who could not reach the higher branches. But my question is where was the tipping point? I guess one could argue there was a certain mutation before their necks got to long where leaning down could kill them. Even if it was a mutation, how intuitive it was. I just see an intelligent design in somethings.

 

[slamhead]

Yeah but why? Why did God go through all the trouble allowing life to evolve for billions of years? From a single cell in the Ocean to land animals? It just seems like evolution is inherently anti-Christian.

Now you get into the concept of time. Time is relative to the speed of light. It baffles me how Einstein figured all that out. You take two perfectly synchronized clocks. You put one on the top floor and one on the bottom floor of a skyscraper and the one on the top floor will run faster. It is just crazy shit to wrap your mind around. This is why people turn to God to explain things that we will perhaps never know.

 

[TheViper]

Now you get into the concept of time. Time is relative to the speed of light. It baffles me how Einstein figured all that out. You take two perfectly synchronized clocks. You put one on the top floor and one on the bottom floor of a skyscraper and the one on the top floor will run faster. It is just crazy shit to wrap your mind around. This is why people turn to God to explain things that we will perhaps never know.

This has been the human maxim since the beginning. Our lack of understanding suggested a force greater than the natural world around us.

Over time, many of those original misunderstandings have lost their spiritual circumstances in light of critical thinking and comprehension.

And this should never be confused with the idea that science is anti-God. Merely that science is anti-old data.

 

[MaxPower]

Evolution simply is unproven scientifically. I don't see how a simple bacterium can be made arbitrarily. Afterall, we don't see junkyards popping out working vehicles just because all the car parts are lying around.

You're conflating two separate things, here; evolution is the gradual adaptation of organisms to their environment over the course of generations. It is not life arising from non-life akin to vehicles arbitrarily coming out of junkyards (an analogy I have also used on this forum, by the way); that is called abiogenesis. And abiogenesis most certainly is unproven.

 

[nobody]

Evolution in and of itself cannot be a correct scientific fact. The Evolution process denotes that information in DNA can change. If this were possible there would exist nothing but mutations. There would be no limiting bounderies for tissue and organisms to mutate towards, to accomplish something into existence. Life could not exist. It takes an unseen World to create a seen World. The seen World cannot create an unseen World in a physical sense. The physical senses are what Evolution would have to use. The physical senses that are available for Evolution to use, can only receive information. They are limited and cannot change DNA or matter structure.

 

[jmdrake]

It's funny how this has predictably morphed into a debate about whether or not evolution or creation is scientifically plausible. Lost in this thread derail is the original discussion of whether you can reconcile the theory that man evolved from a lower species through natural selection to the Christian view of salvation. Central to the Christian view is that death did not exist prior to sin and that Jesus came to save us from sin and death. (Romans 5:12-12) So the two belief systems are irreconcilable. At least Christianity as currently taught and believed by the majority of Christians. (Evolution may be compatible with gnosticism or some other branch of Christianity). That the Vatican now accepts Darwinism just shows that Rick Santorum got it backwards. Note, I'm not saying this to bash Christians who accept Darwinism. I'm just showing the contradiction not just with Genesis, but also with the main thesis of New Testament teaching. Without the belief of man being created in a perfect state, the fall of man, and Jesus coming to restore man to a prefect state, Jesus becomes more of a "Yoda" figure helping man on the path to enlightenment that would happen anyway without God's intervention.

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[James Madison]

It's funny how this has predictably morphed into a debate about whether or not evolution or creation is scientifically plausible. Lost in this thread derail is the original discussion of whether you can reconcile the theory that man evolved from a lower species through natural selection to the Christian view of salvation. Central to the Christian view is that death did not exist prior to sin and that Jesus came to save us from sin and death. (Romans 5:12-12) So the two belief systems are irreconcilable. At least Christianity as currently taught and believed by the majority of Christians. (Evolution may be compatible with gnosticism or some other branch of Christianity). That the Vatican now accepts Darwinism just shows that Rick Santorum got it backwards. Note, I'm not saying this to bash Christians who accept Darwinism. I'm just showing the contradiction not just with Genesis, but also with the main thesis of New Testament teaching. Without the belief of man being created in a perfect state, the fall of man, and Jesus coming to restore man to a prefect state, Jesus becomes more of a "Yoda" figure helping man on the path to enlightenment that would happen anyway without God's intervention.

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God created this Universe to conquer sin. Therefore, He let sin into the Universe and used natural selection, along with occasional Divine Providence, to prepare the Creation for the appearance of man. Likewise, man needed to evolve in order to survive. If man was created perfect he would have no need for the biological systems required for survival and so after the fall his fate would have been a swift death. In a perfect world, evolution would no longer be necessary because we would no longer need to compete for limited resources and fight off infections. That's why Jesus's message was absolute selflessness. It wasn't just altruism, it was darwinian suicide. Jesus was made for a perfect world and His message of helping others, humbling oneself, and giving complete submission to God makes little sense in light of natural selection, even examples of 'altruism' we see from other species. In short, evolution was the only way for God to conquer sin without sin destroying His Creation (and His highest Creation, mankind).

See my original post that everyone ignored.

 

[jmdrake]

God created this Universe to conquer sin. Therefore, He let sin into the Universe and used natural selection, along with occasional Divine Providence, to prepare the Creation for the appearance of man. Likewise, man needed to evolve in order to survive. If man was created perfect he would have no need for the biological systems required for survival and so after the fall his fate would have been a swift death. In a perfect world, evolution would no longer be necessary because we would no longer need to compete for limited resources and fight off infections. That's why Jesus's message was absolute selflessness. It wasn't just altruism, it was darwinian suicide. Jesus was made for a perfect world and His message of helping others, humbling oneself, and giving complete submission to God makes little sense in light of natural selection, even examples of 'altruism' we see from other species. In short, evolution was the only way for God to conquer sin without sin destroying His Creation (and His highest Creation, mankind).

This is only the case if we take "biological success strategy" to be synonymous with "moral imperative;" stating that "Evolution progresses through survival of the fittest" is not at all the same as saying, "Therefore, the morally correct decision is the one which is most successful on an evolutionary level." Christianity has taught from the start that worldly success is not the highest end, that Christians should renounce "survival of the fittest" even if it means that they will be in some ways "beaten" by those who devote themselves strictly to worldly success. Surviving, achieving social dominance, mating, and bringing forth offspring were already seen as signs of earthly success long before they were understood as contributing to a process called "evolution," and Christians were already taught to renounce those things to the extent that they interfered with their spiritual salvation.

See my original post that everyone ignored.

Okay. This got lost to me in the shuffle. I'll answer both of these simultaneously because I see common themes:

1) God isn't necessarily interested in "biological success".
2) God created the universe to conquer sin. (Not common to both posts, but worth addressing)
3) Jesus' teaching not a "success" in terms of self propagation. (That's not how either of you worded it exactly, but I see that as the logical conclusion).

I'll take these out of order. If God's purpose for creating the universe was to "conquer sin", why bother? Sounds like the video game maker looking for a new "challenge". Not impossible, but to me implausible. Sounds petty.

I think God was interested in biological success. I think He created prefect beings who also had the ability to adapt. When things became imperfect, that adaptation ability kicked in.

Christianity has its fastest growth during its most altruistic stage. When Judaism was almost wiped out. And Mahatma Ghandi used Christianity's principles successfully against the British empire even though he never embraced Christianity.

Lastly, what do either of you make of Romans 5 saying that through one man sin entered the world and through sin death? Just a mistake by Paul? And if that teaching can't be believed then how do you decide what parts of Christianity you accept?

 

[AFPVet]

How do I as a Christian reconcile evolution? Well, I do not believe creationism and evolution are dichotomous. Somehow, something occurred to "create" a situation where evolution could start.

 

[otherone]

How do I as a Christian reconcile evolution? Well, I do not believe creationism and evolution are dichotomous. Somehow, something occurred to "create" a situation where evolution could start.

I've always been comfortable with theologians arguing "why?" and scientists arguing "how?"

 

[EricJ]

Check out some Christian science apologetic groups like Answers in Genesis.

 

[TheViper]

Check out some Christian science apologetic groups like Answers in Genesis.

Been there. Couldn't read much without nearly spewing my drink everywhere.

The biggest problem with groups like that is that they work backwards from a scientific viewpoint. They have an already established conclusion to their question and then they work any 'science' in they can to support that conclusion while ignoring all that sits on the contrary.

As I said, that's backwards and distorts true scientific progress.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Been there. Couldn't read much without nearly spewing my drink everywhere.

The biggest problem with groups like that is that they work backwards from a scientific viewpoint. They have an already established conclusion to their question and then they work any 'science' in they can to support that conclusion while ignoring all that sits on the contrary.

As I said, that's backwards and distorts true scientific progress.

Are you saying that atheists don't have an established conclusion that they work back from???

(how can a person be so blind as to not see this?)

 

[TheViper]

Are you saying that atheists don't have an established conclusion that they work back from???

(how can a person be so blind as to not see this?)

Why yes, yes I am saying just that. But how many atheists have actually undertaken scientific study to prove God doesn't exist? Point being, you're attempt to redirect my criticism back at me is baseless.

Answers in Genesis base their entire scientific direction on the information in the Bible. This means they already have their 'answer' and are merely looking for a scientific means to validate it.

Atheist scientists don't have a book of 'answers' they are trying to validate. They, as should any good scientist regardless of religious or non-religious creed, do not establish their answer first. They follow the course of discovery and the application of previous validations. A leads to B which leads to C, etc.... And if they later learn that B was not quite correct, they replace it with a more accurate B. Answers in Genesis won't do that. They care only about validating what they've already concluded (words in the Bible).

Now you are probably asking about scientific hypotheses and theories. The difference between those and the way AIG approach them is that if a theory is incorrect or a hypothesis is unfounded after research, a new hypothesis or theory is crafted to explain the results and is tested again. With AIG, you can't change those theories or hypotheses because the Bible IS their theory/hypotheses.

 

[onlyrp]

Well evolution suggest all creatures came from a primordial soup.

"Came from"? Is that how we typically use that phrase? Did you "come from" Europe? Did you "come from" Noah's Ark? Did you "come from" 6000 years ago?

Species grew over time and adapted.

Grow, as in expand or improve? Or simply not die, and reproduce?

I would think that as food became scarce the giraffes with longer necks out competed the those who could not reach the higher branches. But my question is where was the tipping point?

I don't know what you mean by tipping point, are you asking why giraffes have 6 ft necks, not 3 ft?

I guess one could argue there was a certain mutation before their necks got to long where leaning down could kill them. Even if it was a mutation, how intuitive it was. I just see an intelligent design in somethings.

Where can't you see intelligent design? Can you give me an example of biology that's poor design?

 

[onlyrp]

It's funny how this has predictably morphed into a debate about whether or not evolution or creation is scientifically plausible. Lost in this thread derail is the original discussion of whether you can reconcile the theory that man evolved from a lower species through natural selection to the Christian view of salvation.

Because if one theory is not scientifically proven or plausible, there is nothing left to reconcile, isn't that great?

 

[onlyrp]

Are you saying that atheists don't have an established conclusion that they work back from???

(how can a person be so blind as to not see this?)

I'm sure we do to some extent, but "god does not exist" is not usually one of them.

 

[jmdrake]

Because if one theory is not scientifically proven or plausible, there is nothing left to reconcile, isn't that great?

Sure there is. People are free to postulate about based on presuppositions. If you presuppose that evolution (as in man evolving from lower species) is scientifically correct then what are the ramifications for Christianity as a religion which teaches that God came to earth to die to restore man to a pre-fallen state. If our pre-fallen state is an single celled amoeba then that's nothing worth trying to be restored to. Evolution is more compatible with the Hindu idea of reincarnation to higher and higher forms than it is to Christianity. That's my point.

 

[otherone]

If you presuppose that evolution (as in man evolving from lower species) is scientifically correct then what are the ramifications for Christianity as a religion which teaches that God came to earth to die to restore man to a pre-fallen state. If our pre-fallen state is an single celled amoeba then that's nothing worth trying to be restored to.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions with this.
First, I don't know what you mean by 'lower' species. 'Different' species have evolved based on environmental influences. The only hierarchy is chronological. Therefore, we did not evolve from 'lower' species, all life has evolved from 'prior' species.
Second, That God came to earth to restore man to a pre-fallen state does not mean that man's previous 'state' was a different species. Amoebas are not men, neither are Homo Erectus. They are different species. Man is Man. If one wishes to imagine that God's intent was to return man to our previous state, simply look at Man's previous state. A zygote is not a man, but it is every man's previous state, and while amoeba-like, it is quintessentially human. Each Man's previous state was perfect, original, and with God, prior to conception. Do our souls exist before our conception? Did Christ die for Homo sapiens, or did Christ die for each one of us?

 

[jmdrake]

I think you are making a lot of assumptions with this.

Of course. All arguments are based on some assumptions.

First, I don't know what you mean by 'lower' species. 'Different' species have evolved based on environmental influences. The only hierarchy is chronological. Therefore, we did not evolve from 'lower' species, all life has evolved from 'prior' species.

Species that are less complex and/or less intelligent.

Second, That God came to earth to restore man to a pre-fallen state does not mean that man's previous 'state' was a different species. Amoebas are not men, neither are Homo Erectus. They are different species. Man is Man. If one wishes to imagine that God's intent was to return man to our previous state, simply look at Man's previous state. A zygote is not a man, but it is every man's previous state, and while amoeba-like, it is quintessentially human. Each Man's previous state was perfect, original, and with God, prior to conception. Do our souls exist before our conception? Did Christ die for Homo sapiens, or did Christ die for each one of us?

A human zygote is genetically a human. But I will be more specific. According to Christian dogma the pre-fallen state was sinless and immortal. "By one man sin entered the world and by sin death". The Christian view is that Jesus died to save us from death and sin. "For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life." If the previous state was "prefect" and if death comes from sin and if evolution requires death (and my current understanding it does, because without death how can you have natural selection) then where did the death come from? Describe for me this sinless, deathless, pre-human state that still allowed for natural selection to occur. If you are going to challenge my assumptions you have to come with some of your own.